Mass shooting at Oregon college: 15+ dead...

Post Reply New Topic

So the answer is "no."

Likewise.

You'd have to provide evidence to why a firearm makes it easier. From all I've seen, most murders end up being committed with whatever the person has at hand; if the person has a knife, he'll use one. If a firearm, he'll use that. If nothing, his bare hands. This is common murder, though, where the weapon doesn't matter all that much.

Massacres? A firearm shouldn't make it easier if there's premeditation involved. All it does is affect how you go about it as far as I can see. No firearm? Well, you can buy some matches, gasoline, some chains and locks, and burn a nightclub full of people down.

You wouldn't compare a kitchen knife to a sword, right? Same with a bunny rifle compared to a deer rifle/military one. Yeah, it's annoying to get to the minutiae of it all, especially if you have no interest, but that's why you rely on experts -- people that know about the subject.

What's acceptable in regards to massacres? No one has really done any studies on it, and the main conclusion that I see is that their prevalence is tied up in population size (more people = more massacres), and that they've always been here. Whilst if you remove firearms, you'll have less firearm massacres (or you might not, but logically it makes sense), method substitution will come in, like say burning down a nightclub. You might even make it worst here as people are forced to think up different ways to go about it. You don't remove the massacre by removing the firearm.

For overall murder, the US has a problem with black men killing other black men (with firearms. Many of which aren't allowed to own them -- they get them illegally), which pushes its overall murder rate up. No idea how you can prevent this, as these murders are often acquaintance killings, and any weapon works well enough when it's just a few people involved (stab the dealer on the street corner, or shoot him; same thing).

Doesn't matter what anyone agrees or disagrees with, just what the politicians want.

Nope, I remain unconvinced. I said we're not going to agree. We are diametrically opposed on this issue. I don't want to waste time trying to change your mind. It won't happen. I think we should look for areas where we agree and go from there.

The advantages that firearms have over melee weapons are ease of use, ranged fire and rapidity of fire.

Shooters can stand out of reach of their targets and still kill them. Rapidity comes into play if the targets are missed, and when changing targets. It's also easy to just pull the trigger repeatedly while the weapon is pointed at a cluster of targets.

A thrown knife can be dodged, a held knife can be avoided, and a swordsman can be disarmed. All of these bladed weapons can be blocked by a desk, a door, a wall, a chair, or even a jacket. A firearm can be used to shoot through all of these and still hit the targets. "He who lives by the sword shall die by the gun", after all.

Firearms are simply more effective and efficient than melee weapons, especially against flimsy shields and at range. That's why they're the weapons of choice for madmen who attack schools.

Firearms seem to be the most popular option, but driving a car into a crowd is probably the most effective way to kill a lot of people for those who don't have access to more sophisticated remedies like explosives or dangerous chemicals. I don't think melee is that effective, unless you're a trained ninja, of course.

Found this comment on the local paper

Frans Aja says:

October 2, 2015 at 12:49 am


Shooters endless inspired new shooters.Mostly autistic. Disabled to distinguish reality from fiction. Root abnormal early environment. Solution classic life. Results on long term only. Short term only by drastic measures

Read this
He was armed with four guns, three handguns and an AR-15-style long gun, according to CNN.
You can listen to the police radio audio below: etc etc...

CNN claims he's mixed background gun-owning conservative republican who supports the police against groups like "Black lives matter"

Looking at his mugshot he doesn't strike me as black...

Have a look at the list of rampage killers on Wikipedia, especially areas that don't have much in the way of firearms ownership.

Say, Oceania (other than Oz/NZ):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... Oceania%29

Plenty of accounts there showing melee weapons can account for 10 people killed.

Compare it to say, the Americas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... mericas%29

Note how the weapon changes over to firearms, but the kill counts aren't too far apart.

For school rampages, it's just that most of them happen in areas where there's firearms, but even then, the numbers aren't too different compared to areas without:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... ssacres%29

The long arm appears to be the 10/22 he was showing in a picture, as this would account for people saying they couldn't hear gunshots (such are pretty quiet). A 10/22 can "look" like an AR-15 if you put a 25 round mag in it or similar to a layman. It might not be, but the lack of noise fits.

Yeah, they said he had some pistols. I'm unsure if he used them or not.

Have you guys thought possibly there is a much simpler reason school shootings happen besides mental illness? I do not think mental illness is at play in most of these events.

When these things happen I can't fail to notice that some have histories of mental health issues and some don't--but 99.99% are men. I can't remember ever hearing about a female mass-shooter. Could toxic gender roles have something to do with it, maybe? Why is it only men who kill this way if it's a mental health thing--where are all the mentally ill female spree shooters if mental health is the basic problem?

There's been a couple of women rampage shooters. But yeah, it's a man thing for the most part.

I don't think "shooting" has much to do with it other than being a cultural artifact for the US -- if firearms are common and a part of the culture, then firearms will probably be used. You don't see many mass bombings in the US, even though everyone has ready access to the components needed; you see a lot in the Middle East.

You don't see many massacres in say, Japan, but they have a cultural artifact that prefers suicide when bad times arrive (which has been there for a very long time).

The very first 'school shooter' was a sixteen-year-old girl named Brenda Spencer.

She used a rifle that she owned, a birthday present from her father.

She lived across the street from an elementary school and shot, from a window of her home, children, a janitor, and

the principal, on the playground during recess,sort of like target practice.

She was captured/arrested, and when asked why, answered 'I hate Mondays'.

Laurie Dann was much more complex.....she left a tray full of poisoned fruit drinks in the refrigerator of a local

fraternity, took a classroom full of children hostage, shot at least one of them, and was killed by the police.

Both incidents were over twenty years ago.

There was also Heather Smith who shot her ex boyfriend who was 14 at the time at their junior high school and another 14 year old person from her school before she shot herself as well in 1985. She was 14 as well.