Mall shooting in Clackamas Town Center

[RoseCity07]

Anyone following this? This is a pretty big deal to me. This is a mall I go to. I asked to take my final today instead of Monday. I'm glad because I was thinking about going to the mall.

This mall is very popular. It's right in between the busiest street in Portland and a freeway. Clackamas is a nicer area just outside of Portland. They have a brand new theater and the food court is all renewed. One good thing about that mall is that there are usually a lot of cops walking around because it's so nice.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[miller-time]

Anyone following this? This is a pretty big deal to me. This is a mall I go to. I asked to take my final today instead of Monday. I'm glad because I was thinking about going to the mall.

This mall is very popular. It's right in between the busiest street in Portland and a freeway. Clackamas is a nicer area just outside of Portland. They have a brand new theater and the food court is all renewed. One good thing about that mall is that there are usually a lot of cops walking around because it's so nice.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

How many more people need to die before some heavy restrictions on firearms are made? The ends are not justifying the means here.

[MMM]

How many more people need to die before some heavy restrictions on firearms are made? The ends are not justifying the means here.

People need their guns for when their government turns on them

[Myth]

Anyone following this? This is a pretty big deal to me. This is a mall I go to. I asked to take my final today instead of Monday. I'm glad because I was thinking about going to the mall.

This mall is very popular. It's right in between the busiest street in Portland and a freeway. Clackamas is a nicer area just outside of Portland. They have a brand new theater and the food court is all renewed. One good thing about that mall is that there are usually a lot of cops walking around because it's so nice.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Oh shit, I've shopped there. Didn't get the news down here in Cali.

[miller-time]

People need their guns for when their government turns on them

Given enough time eventually more people will die from their own (collective) firearms than the government would kill if they turned on them. I don't know how many people have died so far in US history from firearms (not including actual war) but it would be an interesting statistic.

[RoseCity07]

How many more people need to die before some heavy restrictions on firearms are made? The ends are not justifying the means here.

I commented on a Bob Costas video the other day. My comment got all thumbs down and I got about a million people sending me hate messages.

One guy made this long argument to me about how gun violence goes up with stricter gun laws. He linked me to some article about Chicago gun violence going up after a gun ban. It sounds like complete bull.

[miller-time]

He linked me to some article about Chicago gun violence going up after a gun ban. It sounds like complete bull.

It might even be true, but it doesn't mean it will be like that forever. Not even factoring in confounding variables, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. An outright gun ban would be a pretty massive change and you would expect to see some immediate fallout, but eventually everything would return to equilibrium.

My fear would be that America is far too entrenched in gun culture that banning them now would only really feed the illegal firearm trade in a similar fashion to prohibition. An outright ban probably wouldn't be a good thing, but a gradual reform to laws and cultural ideals might work best.

[MMM]

not to get into the sentiment of people killing people and not guns but to go along with necessary gun control there should be the necessary focus on the people that commit such acts.

[TheGreatBlaze]

That mall is less than 5 miles from where I live. It's all that much scarier when it's close to home...

[ace23]

How do you pronounce the name of the city?

[maybeshewill13]

Search up how many shootings there have been in Australia.. America needs to l2gunlaws..

What kind of ****ing sicko runs into a shopping mall with the intent of destroying innocent people's lives, as well as their families. Fuxk I hate humanity.

[Velocirap31]

Hopefully that's the last one for December. You guys seem to average about one mass shooting a month. Nothing will change your gun culture of course though. RIP.

[TheGreatBlaze]

How do you pronounce the name of the city?
Clack-uh-mass

[bmulls]

Given enough time eventually more people will die from their own (collective) firearms than the government would kill if they turned on them. I don't know how many people have died so far in US history from firearms (not including actual war) but it would be an interesting statistic.

Far fewer than alcohol, tobacco, motorcycle and other such accidents.

But hey, you don't like guns and you're clearly intelligent and awesome so it must be okay to shit all over other people's constitutional rights, yeah?

[It's A VC3!!!]

This is just disgusting. You can't go anywhere without worrying about your safety anymore. Why doesn't that sicko just end his own life instead of traumatizing hundreds of people and take others lives?

[ElPigto]

In before Ninja Primetime posts.

[miller-time]

Far fewer than alcohol, tobacco, motorcycle and other such accidents.

But hey, you don't like guns and you're clearly intelligent and awesome so it must be okay to shit all over other people's constitutional rights, yeah?

Constitutional rights are made up by people during different periods of time. They aren't inherently good and they shouldn't be timeless. The problem with giving rights is that it is hard to take them away if it is necessary - especially when people consider them tantamount to "God given" rights. Taking away rights isn't shitting on them, it is adjusting the law in respect to their social ramifications. Idealistically by limiting access to firearms you would be giving people the "right" to live in a world where they aren't going to be killed by them. The operative word there being idealistically - I'm not saying that would be how it'd turn out. But there should still be reforms and there should be attempts to change peoples attitudes towards guns.

Also I never mentioned anything about policies relating to any of the other things you mentioned. That is a different discussion.

[bmulls]

Constitutional rights are made up by people during different periods of time. They aren't inherently good and they shouldn't be timeless. The problem with giving rights is that it is hard to take them away if it is necessary - especially when people consider them tantamount to "God given" rights. Taking away rights isn't shitting on them, it is adjusting the law in respect to their social ramifications. Idealistically by limiting access to firearms you would be giving people the "right" to live in a world where they aren't going to be killed by them. The operative word there being idealistically - I'm not saying that would be how it'd turn out. But there should still be reforms and there should be attempts to change peoples attitudes towards guns.

Also I never mentioned anything about policies relating to any of the other things you mentioned. That is a different discussion.

The point is the only reason you think banning guns is a good idea is because you don't enjoy hunting or recreational shooting. Otherwise you would have to agree that alcohol prohibition is also necessary considering the fact that many, many more people die every year due to alcohol related accidents than due to firearms incidents.

This incident is tragic and my heart goes out to all the families. I am also more than willing to listen to anybody who has good ideas how to prevent these incidents in the future. However I can not stand when people blame guns for these shootings while at the same time they would never blame alcohol for a person driving drunk. They would blame the PERSON responsible, and that's how it should be viewed with gun related incidents as well.

[DonDadda59]

People need their guns for when their government turns on them

You are mistaken good sir. The people need their muskets and flintlock pistols just in case the King of England decides to start set trippin again.

That shooter, like all other massacre shooters, is just a patriot fighting against 18th century tyranny. :applause:

[bmulls]

You are mistaken good sir. The people need their muskets and flintlock pistols just in case the King of England decides to start set trippin again.

That shooter, like all other massacre shooters, is just a patriot fighting against 18th century tyranny. :applause:

Nice strawman argument. Come back when you have something logical to say.

[DonDadda59]

Nice strawman argument. Come back when you have something logical to say.

I could've sworn I saw just this morning on one of the news shows someone make the claim that 'defending themselves against tyranny' was the main reason for why people need access to assault rifles. I've heard that argument many times before.

Just pointing out how outdated and ridiculous that line of 'thinking' is. It's actually very logical if you have the ability to see subtext and decipher satire. Obviously not one of your strong suits though.

[Lebron23]

I think your lawmakers should impose a psychological exam before they let these maniacs buy some guns.

[SevereUpInHere]

Nice strawman argument. Come back when you have something logical to say.


What reason do members of the public have to be able to buy military style assault rifles? And no cop outs saying 'cos it's in the constitution.

[InspiredLebowski]

There's far too many guns out there already for any form of gun control to matter, no matter how strict. We went over the cliff a long, long time ago.

[bmulls]

What reason do members of the public have to be able to buy military style assault rifles? And no cop outs saying 'cos it's in the constitution.

:rolleyes:

None of these shooters had assault rifles. It is incredibly difficult to obtain an automatic weapon as a civilian in the US. It requires a hard to get and expensive permit along with the personal endorsement of the chief of your local police. As far as I know there has never been a shooting committed with a fully automatic weapon.

This is simply ignorance by people who don't know anything about firearms but think they should be allowed to make rules for the people who do. They see a scary black gun and assume it is somehow more dangerous than a wooden stock hunting rifle.

[miller-time]

The point is the only reason you think banning guns is a good idea is because you don't enjoy hunting or recreational shooting. Otherwise you would have to agree that alcohol prohibition is also necessary considering the fact that many, many more people die every year due to alcohol related accidents than due to firearms incidents.

This incident is tragic and my heart goes out to all the families. I am also more than willing to listen to anybody who has good ideas how to prevent these incidents in the future. However I can not stand when people blame guns for these shootings while at the same time they would never blame alcohol for a person driving drunk. They would blame the PERSON responsible, and that's how it should be viewed with gun related incidents as well.

Did I say they should actually ban guns? I said they need heavy restrictions and that banning guns wouldn't be a good idea. I would also not ban alcohol (and tobacco) for the very same reason - prohibition doesn't work. Especially in our current cultural climate. I said reforms to law and an attempt to change cultural attitudes is what is needed. I'm not against guns and it would be nice if we could live in a world where the only people that wanted them were recreational shooters, collectors and hunters. But we don't live in that world, so if a law prohibits you from using a certain type of gun to hunt or collect then my suggestion would be to choose a different weapon or hobby.

The difference between guns and drunk driving is you can't take away cars from drunk people. I do hold the people who commit these crimes as responsible, but if it is also possible to limit the chances that they have the means to commit the crimes in the first place I'd be for that law.

[miller-time]

:rolleyes:

None of these shooters had assault rifles. It is incredibly difficult to obtain an automatic weapon as a civilian in the US. It requires a hard to get and expensive permit along with the personal endorsement of the chief of your local police. As far as I know there has never been a shooting committed with a fully automatic weapon.

This is simply ignorance by people who don't know anything about firearms but think they should be allowed to make rules for the people who do. They see a scary black gun and assume it is somehow more dangerous than a wooden stock hunting rifle.

Because Tec-9s (columbine) and AR-15s (aurora) are not more dangerous than a wooden stock hunting rifle...? Yes they aren't fully automatic.. but they are semi-automatic... which is the next best thing on the fire rate scale.

[SevereUpInHere]

:rolleyes:

None of these shooters had assault rifles. It is incredibly difficult to obtain an automatic weapon as a civilian in the US. It requires a hard to get and expensive permit along with the personal endorsement of the chief of your local police. As far as I know there has never been a shooting committed with a fully automatic weapon.

This is simply ignorance by people who don't know anything about firearms but think they should be allowed to make rules for the people who do. They see a scary black gun and assume it is somehow more dangerous than a wooden stock hunting rifle.


Millertime already replied to this. But is a MP-15 (used in Aurora) a civilian version of a military AR15, is that not an assault rifle? A weapon that had a clip that could hold 100 f*cking bullets?

I don't know the full story on this one, but on the CNN link above it says an assault rifle was used in this most recent shooting.

A high powered semi automatic rifle with a clip that can hold up to 100 rounds is absolutely more dangerous than a hunting rifle.

[ace23]

There's far too many guns out there already for any form of gun control to matter, no matter how strict. We went over the cliff a long, long time ago.
This

[maybeshewill13]

The point is the only reason you think banning guns is a good idea is because you don't enjoy hunting or recreational shooting. Otherwise you would have to agree that alcohol prohibition is also necessary considering the fact that many, many more people die every year due to alcohol related accidents than due to firearms incidents.

This incident is tragic and my heart goes out to all the families. I am also more than willing to listen to anybody who has good ideas how to prevent these incidents in the future. However I can not stand when people blame guns for these shootings while at the same time they would never blame alcohol for a person driving drunk. They would blame the PERSON responsible, and that's how it should be viewed with gun related incidents as well.

Oh yeah because killing innocent animals (when you could afford your own food/have means to obtain it) is so much fun! YEEEEEHAWWWW CLETUS!! ****ing rednecks.

[bmulls]

Millertime already replied to this. But is a MP-15 (used in Aurora) a civilian version of a military AR15, is that not an assault rifle? A weapon that had a clip that could hold 100 f*cking bullets?

I don't know the full story on this one, but on the CNN link above it says an assault rifle was used in this most recent shooting.

A high powered semi automatic rifle with a clip that can hold up to 100 rounds is absolutely more dangerous than a hunting rifle.

An assault rifle is defined as a weapon capable of fully automatic fire. The AR15 is patterned after the M16 (a true assault rifle) but is only capable of semi automatic fire. Also the AR15 is not a high powered weapon, it is chambered in .223/5.56 which is one of the lightest rifle calibers out there next to .22LR.

I don't know anybody who uses a 100 round drum magazine, but a large capacity magazine (15-25 rd.) is much more enjoyable to shoot at the range. I would not have a problem with some sort of limit on them though. 100 rounds is unnecessary and was actually illegal under the now expired AWB.

Also, there are many many hunting rifles that are semi-automatic and magazine fed. Nearly every handgun is also semi-automatic and magazine fed. This feature is not at all exclusive to AR style weapons.

[miller-time]

There's far too many guns out there already for any form of gun control to matter, no matter how strict. We went over the cliff a long, long time ago.

True. In Australia we had a buy back scheme after the Port Arthur massacre, but our population and number of guns (especially auto and semi-auto) is much lower than the US. It also cost $500 million, so I don't want to think how much it would be to do something similar in America - we had to increase taxes by 1% and I somehow don't think many Americans would go for increased taxes to take away their guns haha.

[bmulls]

Oh yeah because killing innocent animals (when you could afford your own food/have means to obtain it) is so much fun! YEEEEEHAWWWW CLETUS!! ****ing rednecks.

:biggums:

Where do you think the meat at the grocery comes from? You think it just magically appears or grows on trees? Dipshit.

[bmulls]

:roll: @ clowns anonymously negging me in this thread when all I've done is respond with reasonable posts

[maybeshewill13]

:biggums:

Where do you think the meat at the grocery comes from? You think it just magically appears or grows on trees? Dipshit.

I don't eat meat you ****ing redneck.

[miller-time]

:roll: @ clowns anonymously negging me in this thread when all I've done is respond with reasonable posts

Meh ignore them. It comes with the territory of speaking your mind.

[maybeshewill13]

Meh ignore them. It comes with the territory of speaking your mind.
Especially if it's Laker related..

[miller-time]

An assault rifle is defined as a weapon capable of fully automatic fire. The AR15 is patterned after the M16 (a true assault rifle) but is only capable of semi automatic fire. Also the AR15 is not a high powered weapon, it is chambered in .223/5.56 which is one of the lightest rifle calibers out there next to .22LR.

I don't know anybody who uses a 100 round drum magazine, but a large capacity magazine (15-25 rd.) is much more enjoyable to shoot at the range. I would not have a problem with some sort of limit on them though. 100 rounds is unnecessary and was actually illegal under the now expired AWB.

Also, there are many many hunting rifles that are semi-automatic and magazine fed. Nearly every handgun is also semi-automatic and magazine fed. This feature is not at all exclusive to AR style weapons.

So we can agree that some limitations are reasonable at least?

[miller-time]

Especially if it's Laker related..

For or against the Lakers, you will be negged.

[SevereUpInHere]

An assault rifle is defined as a weapon capable of fully automatic fire. The AR15 is patterned after the M16 (a true assault rifle) but is only capable of semi automatic fire. Also the AR15 is not a high powered weapon, it is chambered in .223/5.56 which is one of the lightest rifle calibers out there next to .22LR.

I don't know anybody who uses a 100 round drum magazine, but a large capacity magazine (15-25 rd.) is much more enjoyable to shoot at the range. I would not have a problem with some sort of limit on them though. 100 rounds is unnecessary and was actually illegal under the now expired AWB.

Also, there are many many hunting rifles that are semi-automatic and magazine fed. Nearly every handgun is also semi-automatic and magazine fed. This feature is not at all exclusive to AR style weapons.


Fine, Assault Weapon, call it whatever the hell you like. What reason is there for a civilian to possess such a weapon?



:roll: @ clowns anonymously negging me in this thread when all I've done is respond with reasonable posts

Yeah that's not my neg either.

[bmulls]

Fine, Assault Weapon, call it whatever the hell you like. What reason is there for a civilian to possess such a weapon?

Because they enjoy shooting them? That is a major fallacy that anti gun people use, that gun owners need some sort of practical reason for owning their firearms other than recreation. We spend billions and billions of dollars a year on entertainment. There are many things in life which serve no practical purpose, and many of them are also dangerous when used incorrectly or by those with malicious intent (see alcohol, tobacco, motorcycles, etc.)

I received one of these as an early Christmas present:

http://www.stu-offroad.com/firearms/mp15-22/mp15-1.jpg

I spent last Sunday at the range and I had a great time. I would much rather go to the range and shoot than see a movie or whatever.

I will also say that as a gun owner I am much more confident in my ability to protect my self, family and property if somebody were to break into my home.

[bmulls]

So we can agree that some limitations are reasonable at least?

It is a difficult question and if there were an easy solution there wouldn't be a huge debate. I would love to own a fully automatic assault rifle. Of course I myself would never shoot up a mall, but if you allow me to own one how do you prevent a mass murderer from owning one? We have attempted to weed out potential criminals by requiring background checks, preventing felons from owning guns, etc. but obviously the wrong people are still getting them. So I do believe we must draw a line somewhere. My worry is that every time a line is drawn it justifies drawing the line ever closer to the things I enjoy doing.

[SevereUpInHere]

Because they enjoy shooting them? That is a major fallacy that anti gun people use, that gun owners need some sort of practical reason for owning their firearms other than recreation. We spend billions and billions of dollars a year on entertainment. There are many things in life which serve no practical purpose, and many of them are also dangerous when used incorrectly or by those with malicious intent (see alcohol, tobacco, motorcycles, etc.)

I received one of these as an early Christmas present:

http://www.stu-offroad.com/firearms/mp15-22/mp15-1.jpg

I spent last Sunday at the range and I had a great time. I would much rather go to the range and shoot than see a movie or whatever.

I will also say that as a gun owner I am much more confident in my ability to protect my self, family and property if somebody were to break into my home.


Come on dude, these things are completely different, guns are designed for one thing. Those things only hurt the user or are a mode of transport.

That's fine, there's millions of people who enjoy that. I just don't think weapons like that should be in civilian hands on the street.

[bmulls]

Come on dude, these things are completely different, guns are designed for one thing. Those things only hurt the user or are a mode of transport.

That's fine, there's millions of people who enjoy that. I just don't think weapons like that should be in civilian hands on the street.

There are many many more deaths every year from drunk drivers killing innocent people than firearms related incidents. This is not simply harming yourself. Alcohol serves no purpose other than recreation, and when used improperly it costs the lives of many innocent people every year. How is this any different than firearms related incidents? Alcohol is clearly the greater plague on society.

[maybeshewill13]

There are many many more deaths every year from drunk drivers killing innocent people than firearms related incidents. This is not simply harming yourself. Alcohol serves no purpose other than recreation, and when used improperly it costs the lives of many innocent people every year. How is this any different than firearms related incidents? Alcohol is clearly the greater plague on society.
Lol @ the fact you keep coming back to alcohol. I agree, I don't drink, alcohol should be illegal.. it's a drug and causes people to do ****ed up shit. Doesn't mean because one bad thing is legal another should be.. how childish.

[miller-time]

There are many many more deaths every year from drunk drivers killing innocent people than firearms related incidents. This is not simply harming yourself. Alcohol serves no purpose other than recreation, and when used improperly it costs the lives of many innocent people every year. How is this any different than firearms related incidents? Alcohol is clearly the greater plague on society.

It doesn't mean we should turn out attention away from one just because another one is worse. Recreationally I agree guns are safer than alcohol but the difference is that guns aren't just used for recreation. They are also used with the express purpose of scaring, harming, or killing people.

[miller-time]

My worry is that every time a line is drawn it justifies drawing the line ever closer to the things I enjoy doing.

But creating a buffer to protect your interests isn't a solution to the greater problem. You are effectively advocating for laxer gun control to make sure the laws are far removed from what you personally want. We all have to sacrifice something in society.

[Timmy D for MVP]

So bmulls...

Hypothetically speaking, if something were invented that mimics perfectly the whole experience of firing a live, lethal weapon, but was in fact non-lethal, would you support that becoming the product pushed for recreational shooting?

[EoJ]

My friends sister in law was shot, shes currently in the hospital. very sad

[ihoopallday]

This is why I try to live happy every day and always let my family and friends know I love them. You never know if it's the last time you'll see or talk to them.

RIP to the victims. So many lives were changed today. Really sad the damage some people can inflict on innocent lives.

[RoseCity07]

My friends sister in law was shot, shes currently in the hospital. very sad

I heard the girl in the hospital is around 18 and expected to live.

[Graviton]

I don't think you guys understand the problem with the gun laws. Those maniacs that go shoot people get their weapons from the black market. Rarely would someone just walk to a gun store and go through all the paperwork, background checks to buy a more expensive gun.

I know people who own illegal automatic rifles, revolvers and whatnot, they didn't buy them from a gun store. Restricting average, sane citizens from buying guns only leaves them defenseless. A criminal will get a gun off the street no matter what.

Funny thing is States with strict gun laws have higher crime rates than those "redneck" states where everyone carries something. District of Columbia, New York, California all have very high crime rates, but their gun laws are the most strict, what gives?

To me, it's pretty obvious, if you wanna rob or kill somebody, are you gonna do it in Texas, Arizona, Colorado? Where almost everyone has a gun? Or will you try California, New York because the clueless citizens willingly disarm themselves?

[InspiredLebowski]

It's disappointing that the NRA doesn't have a council on this sort of thing. Just doing nothing but issue blanket "protect gun rights" statements doesn't do anything to help them.

I don't care how vehemently you support the 2nd amendment, we can't just ignore the proliferation of violence (not just gun violence) in our culture. I won't begin to pretend to know how to fix it, but there needs to be an actual dialog about it, not just keep sweeping it under the rug by saying "crazy people be crazy man."

[knickballer]

It's disappointing that the NRA doesn't have a council on this sort of thing. Just doing nothing but issue blanket "protect gun rights" statements doesn't do anything to help them.

I don't care how vehemently you support the 2nd amendment, we can't just ignore the proliferation of violence (not just gun violence) in our culture. I won't begin to pretend to know how to fix it, but there needs to be an actual dialog about it, not just keep sweeping it under the rug by saying "crazy people be crazy man."

Gun control won't fix these shootings. Crazy people will find a way to purchase some guns through the black market or w/e. It's impossible to stop the control of guns entering this country and it's absurd to think that these incidents would have been stopped if gun possession was illegal.

Gun control will just stop innocent people from attaining guns, crazy people and thugs will find ways to get guns by other means.

[knickballer]

I don't think you guys understand the problem with the gun laws. Those maniacs that go shoot people get their weapons from the black market. Rarely would someone just walk to a gun store and go through all the paperwork, background checks to buy a more expensive gun.

I know people who own illegal automatic rifles, revolvers and whatnot, they didn't buy them from a gun store. Restricting average, sane citizens from buying guns only leaves them defenseless. A criminal will get a gun off the street no matter what.

Funny thing is States with strict gun laws have higher crime rates than those "redneck" states where everyone carries something. District of Columbia, New York, California all have very high crime rates, but their gun laws are the most strict, what gives?

To me, it's pretty obvious, if you wanna rob or kill somebody, are you gonna do it in Texas, Arizona, Colorado? Where almost everyone has a gun? Or will you try California, New York because the clueless citizens willingly disarm themselves?

Nailed it :applause:

[bagelred]

How many more people need to die before some heavy restrictions on firearms are made? The ends are not justifying the means here.

It's not the guns, it's the people. It's the American mindset, not the weapons. Plenty of countries allow people to carry weapons and they have low crime rates. There are just alot of crazy people in America.

Not saying people in U.S. should be allowed to carry guns everywhere, but crazy people will do crazy things sometimes. That's just the way it is and taking away everyone's guns is not the solution.

This is a pretty good article. It'll get us thinking a bit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/its-the-guns-_b_1700218.html

[Rasheed1]

Americans need guns because we are violent and paranoid.


Our violent destructive nature is going to destroy us. We kill each other everyday over petty stuff. We fear each other, and think more weapons will keep us safe.

more weapons wont keep us safe


How about the guy who shot the kid over loud music.... He was a paranoid dumb jack ass

the kids who have shoot outs in the streets (hitting little children and grandmothers)... It doesnt make any f*ckin sense..

We are cannabolizing each other... Thats sad

[bmulls]

So bmulls...

Hypothetically speaking, if something were invented that mimics perfectly the whole experience of firing a live, lethal weapon, but was in fact non-lethal, would you support that becoming the product pushed for recreational shooting?

That depends. How much is it going to cost? The price of ammo since Obama took office has already skyrocketed. A box of 20 rounds of decent .223 ammo costs $10+. The gun I posted a picture of is actually the 2nd AR style rifle I own. It is a .22 because that is the only reasonably priced ammunition you can still buy. I got it as a gift, but I was going to buy one anyway because it's cheaper for me to buy a whole new gun than to spend the money on .223 ammo every time I go to the range. If it's going to cost me $200 or something every time I want to shoot some high tech non lethal ammo then yeah I would have a problem with that.

Also the obvious problem that many people use the same guns to hunt with that they shoot recreationally.

[bmulls]

But creating a buffer to protect your interests isn't a solution to the greater problem. You are effectively advocating for laxer gun control to make sure the laws are far removed from what you personally want. We all have to sacrifice something in society.

I understand that which is why I said it's a difficult problem. I do believe there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, I'm just not sure where.

[bmulls]

It's disappointing that the NRA doesn't have a council on this sort of thing. Just doing nothing but issue blanket "protect gun rights" statements doesn't do anything to help them.

I don't care how vehemently you support the 2nd amendment, we can't just ignore the proliferation of violence (not just gun violence) in our culture. I won't begin to pretend to know how to fix it, but there needs to be an actual dialog about it, not just keep sweeping it under the rug by saying "crazy people be crazy man."

I agree, and I think the problem stems from neither side understanding the other. You're either a gun person or you aren't, and both sides tend to have extreme views which get in the way of productive dialog.

[D-Rose]

You know what, living in Texas has really given me a lot more perspective on Americans and their guns. The people down here really and truly believe that their firearms will do them some good if the government all of a sudden turned on them..sorry but you rifles and revolvers won't do shit against the capabilities of the US military...back in the 18th century it was a different story so firearms and thus the 2nd amendment were of more importance.

Now, I am a realist and don't want to deny people's rights to firearms under the 2nd amendment, at least until it stands. There is of course the fact that the black market would continue to fuel guns and gun violence if they were even banned. I am in favor of stricter gun laws though, I believe that eventually they would kick in and help curb some violence and people's need and desire for guns.

The issue here is not the guns themselves. It's the American mindset. It's this obsession with guns as a solution to everyday problems. It's thinking that one's own government would actually turn on them, revealing lots of paranoia. Why are Americans unique in this manner? Why are we so obsessed with guns? There would need to be a massive rethinking in the American culture to fix this issue. Not sure how or when that will happen, if ever.

When does the next flight to Aussie board?

[ihoopallday]

The shooters name was Jacob Tyler Roberts. Born March 16, 1990. He had an AR 15 semi automatic rifle which he stole from someone he knew. He was carrying several fully loaded magazines.

[miller-time]

It's not the guns, it's the people. It's the American mindset, not the weapons. Plenty of countries allow people to carry weapons and they have low crime rates. There are just alot of crazy people in America.

Not saying people in U.S. should be allowed to carry guns everywhere, but crazy people will do crazy things sometimes. That's just the way it is and taking away everyone's guns is not the solution.

This is a pretty good article. It'll get us thinking a bit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/its-the-guns-_b_1700218.html

The mindset does need to change, I did mention that in a few of my other posts. But I still see the problem as two fold. Here in Australia if I wanted to get a gun to kill people I don't think I could. I can apply for one but I need an actual purpose for it (and personal defense doesn't count). People are partially protected from me (if I were a nutter) simply because I have virtually no access to firearms. I could still go out and do dangerous things, but no where as efficiently as Aurora or Port Arthur.

[RoseCity07]

You know what, living in Texas has really given me a lot more perspective on Americans and their guns. The people down here really and truly believe that their firearms will do them some good if the government all of a sudden turned on them..sorry but you rifles and revolvers won't do shit against the capabilities of the US military...back in the 18th century it was a different story so firearms and thus the 2nd amendment were of more importance.

Now, I am a realist and don't want to deny people's rights to firearms under the 2nd amendment, at least until it stands. There is of course the fact that the black market would continue to fuel guns and gun violence if they were even banned. I am in favor of stricter gun laws though, I believe that eventually they would kick in and help curb some violence and people's need and desire for guns.

The issue here is not the guns themselves. It's the American mindset. It's this obsession with guns as a solution to everyday problems. It's thinking that one's own government would actually turn on them, revealing lots of paranoia. Why are Americans unique in this manner? Why are we so obsessed with guns? There would need to be a massive rethinking in the American culture to fix this issue. Not sure how or when that will happen, if ever.

When does the next flight to Aussie board?

Agree, and I've made similar points about the purpose of the second amendment.

I want to address the argument that if everyone had a gun things like this wouldn't happen. I notice that in all these shootings not one person stopped the situation with a personal firearm. So why then aren't there more people out there carrying guns? It looks to me that guns being legal hasn't stopped one shoot out from happening. If anything the cross fire that would happen would cause more deaths. Can you imagine the confusion of not knowing who the shooter is?

It's just an insanely poor argument to say that more guns in the public would make us safer. Do these people that carry guns have a hero mindset? Do they think they are going to save the day? It will take forever to get guns off the streets if we cater to the "good gun owners".

[miller-time]

I want to address the argument that if everyone had a gun things like this wouldn't happen. I notice that in all these shootings not one person stopped the situation with a personal firearm. So why then aren't there more people out there carrying guns? It looks to me that guns being legal hasn't stopped one shoot out from happening. If anything the cross fire that would happen would cause more deaths. Can you imagine the confusion of not knowing who the shooter is?

I know, could you imagine the blood bath if 4 or 5 other people had firearms in Aurora? I can not possibly imagine taking a gun to the cinema for personal protection.

[bmulls]

Agree, and I've made similar points about the purpose of the second amendment.

I want to address the argument that if everyone had a gun things like this wouldn't happen. I notice that in all these shootings not one person stopped the situation with a personal firearm. So why then aren't there more people out there carrying guns? It looks to me that guns being legal hasn't stopped one shoot out from happening. If anything the cross fire that would happen would cause more deaths. Can you imagine the confusion of not knowing who the shooter is?

It's just an insanely poor argument to say that more guns in the public would make us safer. Do these people that carry guns have a hero mindset? Do they think they are going to save the day? It will take forever to get guns off the streets if we cater to the "good gun owners".

There have been a number of cases where concealed carry permit holders have prevented robberies and such. Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaQsbdXQuZI

And there's many more in the related videos column.

However, for the record, I tend to agree that your average weekend warrior is going to cause more harm than good in a chaotic public shooting situation.

On the other hand there are many documented cases of a gun owner protecting his/her home from burglary which I feel is more than appropriate in those kinds of situations.

[miller-time]

There have been a number of cases where concealed carry permit holders have prevented robberies and such. Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaQsbdXQuZI

My concern is that instead of criminals being discouraged they will just arm themselves better. They aren't going to think "damn, I'm going to have to get a proper job now." They're still going to do what they do, but now the stakes have been raised. Or they will just find new targets or illegal sources of revenue.

[ace23]

My concern is that instead of criminals being discouraged they will just arm themselves better. They aren't going to think "damn, I'm going to have to get a proper job now." They're still going to do what they do, but now the stakes have been raised. Or they will just find new targets or illegal sources of revenue.
Can you explain why there are so many more burglaries per capita in Australia than there are here in the States?

Links:

http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/property%20crime/burglary.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/burglary.html

[miller-time]

Can you explain why there are so many more burglaries per capita in Australia than there are here in the States?

No idea, but generally they occur when no one is home during the day. How exactly would owning a gun prevent anything in that situation?

A couple of years ago I was home and some people tried to break in. Their method - Knock on the door to see if anyone is home, no one answers the door they break in. I answered the door and the person gave me some nonsense about looking for a lost pet cat. Said no, closed the door and they left. Later the Police came around and told me next door had been burgled, guess what they weren't home. So how exactly would having a gun prevent anything?

[ace23]

No idea, but generally they occur when no one is home during the day.
What do you mean by "generally"? Are we talking 60% of the time? 90%? Please provide a link.

[miller-time]

What do you mean by "generally"? Are we talking 60% of the time? 90%? Please provide a link.

I can't find a percentage.

[quote]Residential and non-residential (shops and

[Kobe 4 The Win]

How many more people need to die before some heavy restrictions on firearms are made? The ends are not justifying the means here.

The last time I checked there was already heavy restrictions on weed, cocaine, heroin, etc. There are some pretty strict laws about murdering people too. Not quite sure how passing more laws is going to affect people that don't obey laws.

[miller-time]

The last time I checked there was already heavy restrictions on weed, cocaine, heroin, etc. There are some pretty strict laws about murdering people too. Not quite sure how passing more laws is going to affect people that don't obey laws.

The laws would hopefully have an impact on their ability to commit crimes. Like I said before, I have virtually no access to firearms, if I wanted to go on a massacre I'd be very limited in what I could do. It isn't about stopping people from wanting to commit crimes but rather impeding their chances of doing it. But that also has to be coupled with changes to cultural pro-gun attitudes. Banning them outright would just create more business for black market firearms (

[clayton]

If everybody had guns, they could of popped back.:rockon:

[Is He Ill]

If everybody had guns, they could of popped back.:rockon:

**** yeah, and then everyone could be confused as to which person with a gun is actually the crazy one. I support gun rights, but the issue is a really tough one imo.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

[QUOTE=miller-time]The laws would hopefully have an impact on their ability to commit crimes. Like I said before, I have virtually no access to firearms, if I wanted to go on a massacre I'd be very limited in what I could do. It isn't about stopping people from wanting to commit crimes but rather impeding their chances of doing it. But that also has to be coupled with changes to cultural pro-gun attitudes. Banning them outright would just create more business for black market firearms (

[ace23]

I can't find a percentage.
Yeah, didn't think you would.

All it takes is a smidget of common sense to rationalize the discrepancy in burglary rate. If you don't think the possibility of a homeowner having a gun essentially prevents crime, you're in denial.

[miller-time]

Yeah, didn't think you would.

All it takes is a smidget of common sense to rationalize the discrepancy in burglary rate. If you don't think the possibility of a homeowner having a gun essentially prevents crime, you're in denial.

I provided you with some information. You've provided me with absolutely nothing but some sort of vague relationship between gun ownership and burglary rates based on absolutely no data.

[maybeshewill13]

Yeah, didn't think you would.

All it takes is a smidget of common sense to rationalize the discrepancy in burglary rate. If you don't think the possibility of a homeowner having a gun essentially prevents crime, you're in denial.

You're a ****ing idiot. Read what he posted straight after he said that.. or doesn't that fit your agenda? :sleeping

[joe]

"The 2nd Amendment was written in a different time period for different people."

The underlying principle for the 2nd amendment, the reasoning behind it, is just as important today as it was back then. Just because the people didn't have laptops and worked on farms doesn't change the fundamental issue.

The issue is, we as people create government to protect us. We give them the power of military and law to do so. Sometimes they abuse that power. The people need recourse in that situation.

Has the nature of humanity changed since the 1700's? No.. so how is the 2nd amendment somehow outdated?

"Rednecks could never stand up the might and power of the US military anyway."

You're probably right. All the more reason that the 2nd amendment is maybe even more important today than it was when the politicians had on powder wigs.

[miller-time]

"Rednecks could never stand up the might and power of the US military anyway."

You're probably right. All the more reason that the 2nd amendment is maybe even more important today than it was when the politicians had on powder wigs.

:biggums:

How is it more important? It is a complete paradigm shift. Now people are doing more harm to themselves than they could possibly muster against the government. What makes reinstating that right more important?

[D-Rose]

"The 2nd Amendment was written in a different time period for different people."

The underlying principle for the 2nd amendment, the reasoning behind it, is just as important today as it was back then. Just because the people didn't have laptops and worked on farms doesn't change the fundamental issue.

The issue is, we as people create government to protect us. We give them the power of military and law to do so. Sometimes they abuse that power. The people need recourse in that situation.

Has the nature of humanity changed since the 1700's? No.. so how is the 2nd amendment somehow outdated?

"Rednecks could never stand up the might and power of the US military anyway."

You're probably right. All the more reason that the 2nd amendment is maybe even more important today than it was when the politicians had on powder wigs.

So let's just completely ignore what the amendment actually says:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Such a militia would be applicable and perhaps even necessary in the 1700s...what about today? Do you think a town and all of its gun owners could defend themselves against the U.S. military? :oldlol:

Get real people, the government is not going to attack you with their military, this is Faux News-esque paranoia.

[Cangri]

So let's just completely ignore what the amendment actually says:



Such a militia would be applicable and perhaps even necessary in the 1700s...what about today? Do you think a town and all of its gun owners could defend themselves against the U.S. military? :oldlol:

Get real people, the government is not going to attack you with their military, this is Faux News-esque paranoia.
Didn't you watch Red Dawn? An invasion from the Asians is coming, we need to equip ourselves with assault weapons while we can.

[kNIOKAS]

This is crazy. Tell me if it's American thing exclusively... I cannot think of an instance it happened in my country, and cannot think of multiple instances of it happening in Europe (While in US - easy).
I think it's not in our conscious to shoot somebody. Maybe mug, maybe even knife, but not fire a gun... Not common in Europe at all?

[bmulls]

This is crazy. Tell me if it's American thing exclusively... I cannot think of an instance it happened in my country, and cannot think of multiple instances of it happening in Europe (While in US - easy).
I think it's not in our conscious to shoot somebody. Maybe mug, maybe even knife, but not fire a gun... Not common in Europe at all?

:rolleyes:

All of these happened 2001 or later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Li%C3%A8ge_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Florence_shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanterre_massacre

It's amazing how smug Europeans like to act when a tragedy occurs in America.

Edit: Found some more. These are just the ones which occurred in the last decade. If you go before 2000 there are many many more.

[miller-time]

It's amazing how smug Europeans like to act when a tragedy occurs in America.

Conversely Australia has been doing well since we bought back guns and changed our policies and attitudes towards them. Touch wood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

The US list is kind of weird. Most of them seem to be either really long ago (pre-20th century) or really recent (since Columbine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States

But is it exactly fair to take all of Europe and compare it to the States? The UK also haven't had a massacre since '96 either. In fact that massacre is supposed to have inspired the one in Australia.

[kNIOKAS]

It's amazing how smug Europeans like to act when a tragedy occurs in America.

Edit: Found some more. These are just the ones which occurred in the last decade. If you go before 2000 there are many many more.
I don't know, I knew 2-3 from the list. Maybe it's not getting the publicity?

Anyway, it still stands about shootings not being in the people's consciousness. Beating others is, but not doing it with a gun. Remember, people have been through wars in here (grandpa's generation, but still). I think all this could be interrelated.

[joe]

:biggums:

How is it more important? It is a complete paradigm shift. Now people are doing more harm to themselves than they could possibly muster against the government. What makes reinstating that right more important?

Then maybe we should consider the possibility that our federal military is out of control. We've allowed a monstrous beast to grow and it sits next to us in the same room. The problem here isn't that we have no chance against the monster, the problem is the monster. Taking away what small defense we have against it doesn't seem very bright.

[miller-time]

Then maybe we should consider the possibility that our federal military is out of control. We've allowed a monstrous beast to grow and it sits next to us in the same room. The problem here isn't that we have no chance against the monster, the problem is the monster. Taking away what small defense we have against it doesn't seem very bright.

But the defense is causing more harm than good. It is like holding onto a bacteria culture in an open container to make your enemy (who is immune) sick. The bacteria is only making yourself sick.

[knickballer]

Then maybe we should consider the possibility that our federal military is out of control. We've allowed a monstrous beast to grow and it sits next to us in the same room. The problem here isn't that we have no chance against the monster, the problem is the monster. Taking away what small defense we have against it doesn't seem very bright.

I wonder if the sheeple will wish they kept their guns when the government starts to use drones to "fight against domestic terrorism?"

People need to realize that gun control won't stop any of these shootings.. A crazy guy with the intent of killing people will do so and will find their weapon of choice one way or another. Do you guys actually think gun control will stop the violence among gangs in dysfunctional communities?

[jazz873]

There was just a shooting today in Connecticut at an elementary school

[-p.tiddy-]

There was just a shooting today in Connecticut at an elementary school
saw that :(


is this now the official "public shootings" thread?

wtf is wrong with people today...smh