9 Dead at Umpqua Community College, Oregon

[FilthyRear]

I guess that this "solution" is slightly more responsible than leaving a loaded gun around a child occupied home. But not much.

Children won't be occupying my home. I would hope that any child that is in my home would be accompanied by an adult and would know enough/taught well enough not to be searching through other people's belongings/home for shit that don't belong to them.

Anyways what you should be asking is: What is the point of having a gun if it is more likely to result in the death of a family member/guest than prevent such an incident? Because that is what you are essentially doing by having a gun you hour house. Increasing the likelihood that a resident/guest will die a violent death.

If the event ever occurs that I would have to pull a loaded gun on a family member/guest in my own home, then said event probably couldn't have been prevented in the first place. If the person's sole purpose is to enter MY HOME and do me bodily harm and/or take what is MINE and what I HAVE WORKED FOR, then they are more than welcome to try and I am more than welcome to defend myself.

There are several ways to mitigate this, most of them involve things that run counter to your idea of "immediate home protection".

I don't plan on carrying it on my person at all times (although I would have a license to carry), and I like to think of myself as a reasonable and responsible person. However, there are people that don't give a fuck and these are the people that break into your home without any regard for who may be inside. THESE are the people that scare me, and THESE are the people that I WILL DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST.

I plan on getting a dog as well. A dog is a deterrent to most criminals (read: most), but not all. For the rest, you need something with a bit more stopping power.

 

[HDRchampion]

I actually dont have problems with gun owners, i would like to own one myself. Im not really sure the process of owning a gun but i take its pretty easy & anyone is qualified to get one unless they have a criminal record or diagnose with a mental illness.

What bothers me is the open carry laws. Im always uneasy when im in the checkout line at a store/fast food joint & i see a persons gun showing.

 

[smokehouse]

I actually dont have problems with gun owners, i would like to own one myself. Im not really sure the process of owning a gun but i take its pretty easy & anyone is qualified to get one unless they have a criminal record or diagnose with a mental illness.

What bothers me is the open carry laws. Im always uneasy when im in the checkout line at a store/fast food joint & i see a persons gun showing.

I'm not a fan of open carry either, it announces to the entire world that you're armed. To those that do not pose a threat to you, this is a wash and thus useless. To those that do, this is actually a bad thing giving them the knowledge of the fact that you are armed should they want to start something.

Truth be told, I don't even have a concealed carry license. For the most part, I have no reason to get one. It is quite safe where I live and anywhere I would even come close to considering firearm carry (Chicago, St. Loius) is illegal anyway...so what's the point?

 

[norton9478]

chempop is just simply a troll.

 

[smokehouse]

chempop is just simply a troll.

Yeah, I know. He's just poking the skunk is all...there is some truth behind his posts though.

I was going to address the magazine cap issue...in all seriousness, it wouldn't make a difference. If my memory serves me correctly, Columbine was done with post 1994 cap-ban firearms, that's just one off the top of my head. "feature" bans don't seem to do much good, overall.

 

[norton9478]

You can't compare columbine to anything since tactical response has completely changed since (and as a result) of that incident.



I'd also argue that magazine size is much more than a "Feature". Call it whatever you want, high capacity magainzes (10+) have been a feature of nearly half of all recent mass shootings.



Here are some times when a mass shooting got snagged when reloading:
http://blog.timesunion.com/lawrencewhite/another-shooter-stopped-by-unarmed-citizens/1789/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting
And of course, the aforementioned sandy hook incident where kids supposedly escaped while the perp was having trouble loading his gun.

 

[SouthtownKid]

If the event ever occurs that I would have to pull a loaded gun on a family member in my own home,

I like that this is a contingency you have pre-worked out.

 

[DNSDies]

Lower capacities on magazines won't change anything noteworthy, especially considering there are 10 million or more "high" capacity magazines in circulation.

You bring up Sandy Hook a lot, and the gunman there was said to have fired "at least" 150 rounds, meaning he'd need to have changed magazines a minimum of 4 times.

Magazine size is more likely to matter for people defending against aggressors, which is why it is dangerously presumptuous for the government to declare that no one needs to fire more than X number of rounds.

I'd argue that innocent people using guns need higher capacity magazines more than criminals, especially since they'd be panicky, under high stress, and unlikely to have good shot placement.

One bullet CAN kill, but people have survived being shot more than 10 times by standard 9mm rounds. I'd rather have the odds stacked in favor of a person defending themselves by letting them empty a full 15 round magazine from a pistol into someone trying to hurt them.

 

[smokehouse]

You can't compare columbine to anything since tactical response has completely changed since (and as a result) of that incident.



I'd also argue that magazine size is much more than a "Feature". Call it whatever you want, high capacity magainzes (10+) have been a feature of nearly half of all recent mass shootings.



Here are some times when a mass shooting got snagged when reloading:
http://blog.timesunion.com/lawrencewhite/another-shooter-stopped-by-unarmed-citizens/1789/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting
And of course, the aforementioned sandy hook incident where kids supposedly escaped while the perp was having trouble loading his gun.

I'm aware of all of those...and I would say "why not"...if I wanted to do some crazy mass murder, I'd use as many rounds in a magazine as I could get as well. But...limit those magazines to 10 and it would be a complete guess that the outcome would have been so much better. The shooter could just pack two pistols...now you got 20 rounds. He could be proficient at reloading...who knows.

Again, we're talking about banning literally millions of items to prevent extremely rare events here. That's quite the drastic measure to solve a very small problem.

Lower capacities on magazines won't change anything noteworthy, especially considering there are 10 million or more "high" capacity magazines in circulation.

I bet there is far more than that. With 310,000,000+ firearms floating around...even if only 25% take magazines that's 77 million magazines at 1 per firearm. Few people have 1 magazine per firearm...the number would be much higher than that.

 

[evil wasabi]

anyone else notice how the rhetoric went from "ban all guns!" to "I wish there was more regulation"?

Manipulative liberals are manipulative.

 

[norton9478]

Yeah, I know. He's just poking the skunk is all...there is some truth behind his posts though.

I was going to address the magazine cap issue...in all seriousness, it wouldn't make a difference. If my memory serves me correctly, Columbine was done with post 1994 cap-ban firearms, that's just one off the top of my head. "feature" bans don't seem to do much good, overall.

As a point of fact:
Klebold was equipped with a 9×19mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun for a total of 55 times, while he discharged a total of 12 rounds from his double-barreled shotgun.

 

[norton9478]

I'm aware of all of those...and I would say "why not"...if I wanted to do some crazy mass murder, I'd use as many rounds in a magazine as I could get as well. But...limit those magazines to 10 and it would be a complete guess that the outcome would have been so much better. The shooter could just pack two pistols...now you got 20 rounds. He could be proficient at reloading...who knows.

20 rounds is less than 40 (2 guns, 20 rounds each). And once you empty them, you can only hold one while reloading.

A proficient reloader is still more vulnerable than someone who doesn't have to reload.

Again, we're talking about banning literally millions of items to prevent extremely rare events here. That's quite the drastic measure to solve a very small problem.

I've already said that the primary focus of gun control should be to curb incidents other than mass shootings. So I guess I'd almost agree with you there.

I bet there is far more than that. With 310,000,000+ firearms floating around...even if only 25% take magazines that's 77 million magazines at 1 per firearm. Few people have 1 magazine per firearm...the number would be much higher than that.

I doubt that Adam Lanza would have had a high capacity magazine, if such was illegal.

 

[DNSDies]

I doubt that Adam Lanza would have had a high capacity magazine, if such was illegal.

Wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook from happening.
Lanza had to reload 6 times during that, as the lion's share of shots fired by him came from the Bushmaster XM15-E2S M4.

It's been around since before the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Also, he broke gun control laws by stealing his weapons, so none of that would have helped.

 

[norton9478]

Wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook from happening.
Lanza had to reload 6 times during that, as the lion's share of shots fired by him came from the Bushmaster XM15-E2S M4.

It's been around since before the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Also, he broke gun control laws by stealing his weapons, so none of that would have helped.

The Bushmaster Lanza used had a 30 round magazine Of which he used 15+ Rounds every time. This allowed him to reload at his convenience, rather than when he ran out of ammo.
-Nice Try



The one time he had a problem reloading, kids escaped.

It's been around since before the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Also, he broke gun control laws by stealing his weapons, so none of that would have helped.

He stole them from a law abiding citizen. So you have to assume that any limitations to the law abiding citizen would limit his ability also.

 

[norton9478]

Children won't be occupying my home. I would hope that any child that is in my home would be accompanied by an adult and would know enough/taught well enough not to be searching through other people's belongings/home for shit that don't belong to them.

I'm going to assume that you haven't spent much time around kids.....
Or parents.

If the event ever occurs that I would have to pull a loaded gun on a family member/guest in my own home, then said event probably couldn't have been prevented in the first place. If the person's sole purpose is to enter MY HOME and do me bodily harm and/or take what is MINE and what I HAVE WORKED FOR, then they are more than welcome to try and I am more than welcome to defend myself.

What makes you think that you are going to be the one holding the firearm?

 

[DNSDies]

He stole them from a law abiding citizen. So you have to assume that any limitations to the law abiding citizen would limit his ability also.

In what political climate prior to 1994 do you EVER see there being a magazine size limit on a firearm that is used by several countries as their standard issue military rifle?

It also uses STANAG standard magazines, so it's not a firearm-specific magazine.

You're wishing on fairy dust, man. May as well "what if" his gun suddenly shot unicorn farts.

 

[Chempop]

I am not prejudice against gun owners, nor am I intentionally trolling the thread. I grew up with BB guns, shot a 22 when I was young, loved books about hunting and guns. Played with toy guns growing up, used to love making fake guns out of various pieces of wood and copper pipes.

I also had a classmate blow his brains out in 7th grade, happen to know a parent of a child who attends Sandy Hook, and personally know the police chief responsible for letting that kid use an Uzi at that gun show a number of years back (resulting in his accidental death). I do not blame the guns first, but I do think some regulations could help the situation. There have apparently been more than 1 mass shooting per day in 2015, very few make the news. I think it is far more of a cultural problem and general apathy for life, it goes way deeper than the simple facts of buying and owning guns. I think a big part of it is how people want to feel like they have some power, or at least are in control of their life. Guns give them that artificial sense of security.

 

[galfordo]

[

Graph 1: Limit it to OECD countries.


Graph 2/3:
You shouldn't include Puerto Rico.
Take that "State" out.
And while you are at it, take out DC too.+

Graph 1: Not sure why it's more fair to exclude 80% of the countries in the world which aren't members of a particular club, but I'll check it out. Seems ridiculous, and contrived.

Graph 2: Puerto Rico wasn't included. DC is a pretty big mess, but removing it isn't gonna change the slope of a regression line based on 51 points. I can post this plot if you'd like, but the result is the same. No correlation.

 

[galfordo]

Still no correlation. Sorry Norton.

 

[norton9478]

In what political climate prior to 1994 do you EVER see there being a magazine size limit on a firearm that is used by several countries as their standard issue military rifle?

Now you are reaching.

Graph 1: Not sure why it's more fair to exclude 80% of the countries in the world which aren't members of a particular club, but I'll check it out. Seems ridiculous, and contrived.

Graph 2: Puerto Rico wasn't included. DC is a pretty big mess, but removing it isn't gonna change the slope of a regression line based on 51 points. I can post this plot if you'd like, but the result is the same. No correlation.

You only include OECD countries becuase the third world is the third world. We don't set policy based on third world bullshit.

And Puerto Rico had to have been included. You had a dot with a homicide rate of 24/100,000. What state has a homicide rate of 20+ (besides puerto rico)?

 

[norton9478]

H]

Still no correlation. Sorry Norton.

So you are saying that there is no evidence that gun ownership prevents homicides.
-Got it.

 

[galfordo]

You only include OECD countries becuase the third world is the third world. We don't set policy based on third world bullshit.

And Puerto Rico had to have been included. You had a dot with a homicide rate of 24/100,000. What state has a homicide rate of 20+ (besides puerto rico)?

Third world bullshit? I'm not following your logic here. Why would that affect the correlation (assuming it exists)? Shouldn't more guns still equate to a higher homocide rate?
Doesn't matter though - there's still no correlation even if you just use OECD countries.

And to answer your question - that would be good old D.C.
Doesn't matter though - still no correlation with or without it.

So you are saying that there is no evidence that gun ownership prevents homicides.
-Got it.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Increased gun ownership, in general, neither lowers nor raises homocide rates. Both sides are wrong on this.

 

[norton9478]

Third world bullshit? I'm not following your logic here. Why would that affect the correlation (assuming it exists)? Shouldn't more guns still equate to a higher homocide rate?

Because for the sake of policy, you compare OECD countries to other OECD countries when discussing policy for OECD countries. Because they are so different in what works.

You have already stated that there is a relationship between homicides and poverty. So if you are using cross country studies and want to look at the effect of guns, you try to control for poverty. An easy way to do that is to separate out the OECD countries.

And to answer your question - that would be good old D.C.

So you used 10 year averages then. I see.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Increased gun ownership, in general, neither lowers nor raises homocide rates. Both sides are wrong on this.

There are other things that would need to be looked at before drawing such a conclusion.

 

[Tripredacus]

The shooter had aspergers.

 

[smokehouse]

The shooter had aspergers.

Asperger's is pretty broad in scope...but as is often the case, I can almost guarantee you this could have been avoided if his parents had just done their fucking job. Just like Lanza...I bet the further down the road they go into the shooter, they'll find that his mental instability was something that was known.

I've long said that (god forbid), if my daughter/wife EVER began displaying signs of mental instability, I would put any firearm I won behind a lock you cannot cut (you know, within reason). Lanza was completely the fault of his idiot mother, its justice that her stupid ass was the first person her son killed...sadly, others died because of her mistakes.

I am sure the shooter from last week had been displaying antisocial signs for some time coming...and nothing was done about it.

Again...there's no stopping "crazy"...it is also not always something anyone notices, but often...people knew this shit could happen.