Portland high school shooting - one student dead, as well as gunman

[PorkChop]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 23622.html

"A 26-year-old suspect is being held without bail. Police said he had no connection to the university, but had allegedly planned to kill as many people as he could before turning the gun on himself."

[Everlong]

Nobody leave the site over this one, ok?

[Str8Shooter]

What's Locke's opinion on this?....

[Westcoastvibes]

^and y'all wonder why he left

[HFX]

^and y'all wonder why he left

He did it to himself with how he left...

Anyways there's really nothing to say about this event. It's terrible and horrible and saddening and completely not surprising in the least to hear about which makes it even worse. The real question is where and when will the next one be.

[ShaneOfan]

Now just think if all those kids and teachers had machine guns with rocket launchers attached they would have killed the bad guy before he shot anyone.

[SortaCreative]

[Battleaxe]

I just went back and read the thread that made Locke leave, and I'm sorry to see it's been closed, as I read some outrageous arguments that were actually receiving a great deal of praise from reputable members...

[Daz]

I will say nothing.

[PorkChop]

I just went back and read the thread that made Locke leave, and I'm sorry to see it's been closed, as I read some outrageous arguments that were actually receiving a great deal of praise from reputable members...

Such as?

[Str8Shooter]

I just went back and read the thread that made Locke leave, and I'm sorry to see it's been closed, as I read some outrageous arguments that were actually receiving a great deal of praise from reputable members...

Such as?

Don't start.

[PorkChop]

I just went back and read the thread that made Locke leave, and I'm sorry to see it's been closed, as I read some outrageous arguments that were actually receiving a great deal of praise from reputable members...

Such as?

Don't start.

I'm intrigued to hear what Battleaxe has got to say. After I read his post I might leave the forum though.

[Hanley!]

I just went back and read the thread that made Locke leave, and I'm sorry to see it's been closed, as I read some outrageous arguments that were actually receiving a great deal of praise from reputable members...

You can raise your issues here. It's all part of the big gun control debate after all.

I was sort of sad that the thread was closed, as I had more to say, but these things happen.

[PorkChop]

I just went back and read the thread that made Locke leave, and I'm sorry to see it's been closed, as I read some outrageous arguments that were actually receiving a great deal of praise from reputable members...

You can raise your issues here. It's all part of the big gun control debate after all.

I was sort of sad that the thread was closed, as I had more to say, but these things happen.

We can have the debate in this thread, then. As long as people are respectful and I don't see any more 'See ya.' topics.

@Battleaxe, what did you want to raise?

[ShaneOfan]

I have no problem with a debate. I own guns yet think we need better regulations. On the issues, I think some of the stuff said on both sides went further then we need to.

[Battleaxe]

It seems like some of the comments I read were made by people who've never been in a position where their life was threatened, nor have ever been in a position that makes them solely responsible for the well-being of another person. I'm sure I just put my foot in my mouth with that statement, and will get responses from people who've actually been victims of violent crimes, and have five kids haha.

Suggesting that everyone should feel safe enough to go without owning a gun just because you personally do, is one of the most arrogant statements I've ever read. It's nice to be idealistic and contend that the possibility of having to defend one's family isn't high enough to warrant owning a gun, but who the hell are you, or anyone else, to make that call? I especially loved the home-invasion scenario Daz created, as if there's a set of guidelines "most" intruders adhere to.

"Nah, don't worry. He's probably one of the "regular" criminals; not one of those "bad" ones. I'm sure he's unarmed and has no intention of causing me harm. He only wants to steal some stuff. I'll just call the police and slip out the back door."

Suppose he is armed. Suppose he does intend to harm you. Suppose the nearest cop isn't right around the corner. Call it a product of gun culture, call it whatever you want. I call it reality. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unimaginably horrific things happen to people, and suggesting that those who react to that reality by arming themselves are "retarted" is a statement I take issue with. Also, the point of having a gun handy in the event of a break-in isn't necessarily to shoot the intruder; can you think of a more effective--and immediate--way to scare one off? If anything, a gun in that situation could be an ideal way of preventing any kind of physical altercation between the intruder and homeowner.

I'm not claiming that there isn't a problem going on in my country, and that something about the culture has to change. I do think some of the statements I read in that thread were fairly over-the-top, however.

[Westcoastvibes]

can you think of a more effective--and immediate--way to scare one off? If anything, a gun in that situation could be an ideal way of preventing any kind of physical altercation between the intruder and homeowner

This happened to my dad who lives less than 100yard from me. He woke up to someone in his house, he grabbed his gun and fired 2 rounds next to the guy into the brick wall (its a brick house BTW) and the guy went running. Cops came and actually commended him for what he did, they said it was the most effective way to deescalate the situation without harm. Now, the situation could likely have been different if the intruder had been armed himself but in my dads scenario it was the ideal method of approach.

[ShaneOfan]

Here is the thing. People always fantasize that they will wake up and see a burglar about to kill them and they will pop two into his chest and one into his head and be called a hero in the local paper. They don't think about the fact that you are statistically more likely to shoot your 16 year old is sneaking in to the house at 3am drunk. Or that the person you are most likely to shoot it yourself.

I have guns, I have guns for hunting. I have guns for target shooting. And yes I have guns for home protection in the very rare case it would ever come to that. But I realize they are dangerous and that I am not John McClain. I also realize that just because I have training and know how to properly handle a firearm doesn't mean I want to kill someone. It's easy to point a gun and squeeze a trigger. It isn't easy to live with the fact that you killed a man, or a little girl.

But set that to the side. I don't think all guns should be banned. Assault rifles, yes 100%. Stop the sales. Offer money for trade ins. Refuse to sell ammo. Refuse to sell reloading supplies for them. Grandfather the ones in existence and disallow and person to person sales. The only problem with banning assault rifles is it is hard to define an assault rifle. It's like porn. You can't describe it, but you now it when you see it.

Also ban large capacity magazines. Pistols should be able to keep their current sizes but ban extended clips. As for rifles, if you can't kill something with five shots, 25 more likely aren't going to help much anyway.

No, unrecorded person to person sales for guns period. Any person to person transactions should have to take place at a licensed retailer or police department.

Background checks. Part of the reason unrecorded sales are bad is I can't tell by looking at someone who wants to buy my shotgun is a nut job. Or a convicted felon. There should be background checks and waiting periods for all sales. Hell have them for ammo. If you really feel you need a new gun and 50 rounds RIGHT NOW. I would prefer if you didn't have a gun at all. Calm down, take a breath, pet a puppy dog.

I also would be open to limits on how many guns. Maybe Noah's arc that shit. Two long guns (One for big game one for small) two shotguns (Two gauges are useful for different types of hunting) two pistols. If you need more then six guns to kill something... see my magazine comment.

Also those guns of yours have to be registered. Period. No if's, ends, or buts. I don't carry if you had the gun for 40 years. If you get pulled over and it's in your car and it is not registered, it is an illegal weapon.

No open carry. You don't look like a bad ass. You are only showing the bad guys who's gun to take. That and intimidating Innocent people who would like to enjoy their dinner without being shot. While we are at it, your gun must be on your person or in your home at all times.

But wait, I have my rights. The Bill of Rights says so...

Does it? What it says is, "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."

It doesn't say shit about private ownership. It is listed in the same sentence as WELL REGULATED MILITIA not private citizen. It is separated by commas, not periods because it is meant to be part of the same. The Militia (the regulated one mind you) has the right to bear arms.

But why even do that? Were we afraid King George would seek revenge? Were we afraid James Madison would make himself King? No. It's because a good deal of our citizens didn't live in the cities. They lived in the wilderness miles away from help if they were attacked. Attacked by Native Americans, or highway men, or bears. They couldn't exactly dial 9-1-1 and have the five-o show up. It was a different time. Things have changed. Women can vote, booze became illegal... then legal again, you can't own black people anymore. We CAN change what ever the hell we want.

[PorkChop]

Ok, to discuss a few things here:

It seems like some of the comments I read were made by people who've never been in a position where their life was threatened, nor have ever been in a position that makes them solely responsible for the well-being of another person.

The 'life being threatened' thing just contributes to the vicious circle that is gun crime in America. Sure, you could prevent your life being threatened by carrying a gun, but also have your life threatened because someone else is carrying one. This vicious circle was pretty evident in Locke's post, as he said he had a gun to protect himself from other people who may have guns - it didn't seem to cross his mind that he's actually contributing to the vicious circle by acting this way.

And personally, I've never been in a position where my life is threatened because my country don't have people walking around carrying guns. The closest I've been to having my life threatened is in a few fairly tame fights. Now imagine if there was a gun in the equation. In a vulnerable, adrenalin-filled moment my opponent or myself could pull out a gun and take a shot. I could be dead, paralysed, in prison... all because of a decision made in a moment of panic. As someone said in the other thread, there's nothing worse than a scared person with a gun.

As for being solely responsible for the well-being of another person, I used to work with disabled kids, some of which had single parents who were solely responsible for them. Those parents seemed to be getting along just fine without owning a gun - which, by your logic, is remarkable seeing as their children are more vulnerable than others and can't fend for themselves.

Suggesting that everyone should feel safe enough to go without owning a gun just because you personally do, is one of the most arrogant statements I've ever read.

Your criticism of this seems quite counter-productive. You say you're aware that there's a gun problem going on in your country, yet you're actually criticising someone here who has taken steps to break this vicious circle.

There seems to be a undertone here with your posts, Westcoastvibes' posts and Locke's posts of paranoia or fear in regards to what your neighbour or fellow American could be doing or carrying. What kind of society is that, where people live in fear and suspicion of one another? Referring back to my previous paragraph, nothing is worse than a scared person with a gun.

It's nice to be idealistic and contend that the possibility of having to defend one's family isn't high enough to warrant owning a gun, but who the hell are you, or anyone else, to make that call?

Works both ways - who are you to make that call?

I especially loved the home-invasion scenario Daz created, as if there's a set of guidelines "most" intruders adhere to. "Nah, don't worry. He's probably one of the "regular" criminals; not one of those "bad" ones. I'm sure he's unarmed and has no intention of causing me harm. He only wants to steal some stuff. I'll just call the police and slip out the back door."

If you want to properly debunk Daz's example, relevant statistics on home invasions in America will be needed and not sarcastic opinions.

Ultimately though, Daz is speaking from a British perspective on home invasions and you're speaking from an American perspective. They're two different things, because we don't have guns added to the equation here. I don't think you can compare the two as there's a completely different dynamic.

Suppose he is armed. Suppose he does intend to harm you. Suppose the nearest cop isn't right around the corner. Call it a product of gun culture, call it whatever you want. I call it reality. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unimaginably horrific things happen to people, and suggesting that those who react to that reality by arming themselves are "retarted" is a statement I take issue with.

Once more, your post sounds of someone who is scared of what others are carrying, planning, or doing.

You shouldn't have to live in fear.

Also, the point of having a gun handy in the event of a break-in isn't necessarily to shoot the intruder; can you think of a more effective--and immediate--way to scare one off? If anything, a gun in that situation could be an ideal way of preventing any kind of physical altercation between the intruder and homeowner.

There are several measures which can be taken to prevent intruders approaching or getting in your house anyway, and a gun should be the last resort - yet you seem to be treating it as the only proper measure which can be taken. A big dog, a gravel driveway, an alarm system, a reinforced door and windows amongst several other measures can help prevent intruders from approaching or entering the property.

However, I can't deny that a gun is a good way to scare somebody off, but this doesn't mean that they're a good thing. Industrial-sized canisters of tear gas, stun grenades and plenty of other weapons would be a good way to get an intruder to panic and leave the property, and prevent a physical altercation between the intruder and the homeowner too, but it doesn't mean that everyone should be stocking up on those.


******

From what I've read on these boards, it seems most of those who are advocating the right to own a gun are quite ironically the ones who sound most afraid of them.

[Hanley!]

It seems like some of the comments I read were made by people who've never been in a position where their life was threatened, nor have ever been in a position that makes them solely responsible for the well-being of another person. I'm sure I just put my foot in my mouth with that statement, and will get responses from people who've actually been victims of violent crimes, and have five kids haha.

Suggesting that everyone should feel safe enough to go without owning a gun just because you personally do, is one of the most arrogant statements I've ever read. It's nice to be idealistic and contend that the possibility of having to defend one's family isn't high enough to warrant owning a gun, but who the hell are you, or anyone else, to make that call? I especially loved the home-invasion scenario Daz created, as if there's a set of guidelines "most" intruders adhere to.

"Nah, don't worry. He's probably one of the "regular" criminals; not one of those "bad" ones. I'm sure he's unarmed and has no intention of causing me harm. He only wants to steal some stuff. I'll just call the police and slip out the back door."

Suppose he is armed. Suppose he does intend to harm you. Suppose the nearest cop isn't right around the corner. Call it a product of gun culture, call it whatever you want. I call it reality. Unfortunately, we live in a world where unimaginably horrific things happen to people, and suggesting that those who react to that reality by arming themselves are "retarted" is a statement I take issue with. Also, the point of having a gun handy in the event of a break-in isn't necessarily to shoot the intruder; can you think of a more effective--and immediate--way to scare one off? If anything, a gun in that situation could be an ideal way of preventing any kind of physical altercation between the intruder and homeowner.

I'm not claiming that there isn't a problem going on in my country, and that something about the culture has to change. I do think some of the statements I read in that thread were fairly over-the-top, however.

I'm noticing a trend here. Most of the people here who don't agree with carrying a gun to protect yourself appear to be from the UK & Ireland. Most of the people who think it's a smart idea are from the US. As most of you will know, the average person in the British Isles can't get a gun. They don't have much of a presence over here. And as a result, some people will write off their opinions on the matter as irrelevant. A British person won't feel the need to buy a gun, because they are extremely unlikely to ever get attacked by anyone with a gun. So they can't understand why people have to do what they do in America.

But - and the others can correct me if I'm wrong here - surely that's the whole point here. That the situation in America isn't helping. People are basically just saying that if there were less guns in America, people would be less afraid of guns. And people wouldn't feel the need for them to the same extent. Nobody is complaining about individuals purchasing weapons to protect themselves. ShaneOfan has admitted to owning guns and I think most people here respect that he made that decision. This isn't about people on an individual level, it's about America on a macro level. Change needs to be made by the government. You take away some of those weapons and put more restrictions on them and the culture will start to change. But they need to be willing to take that first step.

There will always be a few people weighing in with the "but then only criminals will have guns" argument too, but the reason criminals find it so easy to illegally obtain firearms in America is because there are so many in circulation. To take things to the opposite extreme, here in Ireland I have no idea how the hell I would go about obtaining a gun illegally. It seems an almost impossible task to me.

Can we all at least agree that in an ideal world, no regular citizen should have to carry these weapons? The thing that really sets guns apart is that they're killing devices. That's what they were invented for and it's their only real function. Ultimately while other people having guns might put external pressure on you to have one as well to protect yourself, 2 people with guns will never be as safe as 0 people with guns. Guns kill far more people than they save.

It's always the school shootings or mass shootings that bring up conversations about gun control too, but you don't hear quite so much about things like suicides or accidental deaths. And the numbers there are a lot higher. The fact is that if you bring a gun into your home, it's more likely to hurt you or one of your family members than any attackers. So while having one around carries certain assurances, it also comes with a lot of risks even to yourself personally.