Oregon college shooting: Gunman kills nine in Roseburg attack

I'm surprised this hasn't already been posted, Another 10 innocent dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34419802

 

You know what's upset me the most, not that there's been yet another mass murder event in America, as Obama said it's become routine, it's that some people in American society still can't see the harm that gun ownership is doing.

It's like watching a drug addict who can't see the harm hes doing when everyone around him can, I'm going to take cover now because I dare say I'll get lambasted for highlighting that the drug addict is killing himself.

 

The guy started a thread on "that" message board on the night before (Wednesday).

It's been deleted but here's a link to an archive (NSFW and beware, it's m**g-soup, as you can imagine, with people egging him on and such).

https://archive.is/KJ1LD

It's only internets, right?

 

QUite frankly, those ****ers should be tracked down and charged with assisting in the murders.

 

The fact that one of the girls interviewed from the college suggested that if everybody had a gun then this wouldn't have happened is seriously troubling, but not surprising as even Obama brought up that argument in his speech.

I does make you wonder just what has to happen for the laws to be changed, because clearly multiple killings of innocent people isn't enough!

 

Obama and the anti-gun lobby are whoring dead kids again, business as usual.

There's already millions of guns in circulation so stricter gun control would solve nothing, criminals will always find weapons regardless.

 

A bit of devils advocate here, if everyone had guns, everyone would shoot each other. Or everyone would be afraid to shoot. It's the same concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.

It's disturbing, yes, it's a horrifying situation to live in, but more can be done within the societies there to prevent these teens from snapping.

It's the "rage" these individuals feel, the glorification on the "internets" when something like this happens, society for this kid was generally a rubbishy turd that needed wiping up.

If the intent is to cause harm in a very public way, they'll find a way of doing it, guns or not.
Reducing access to weapons will just promote another means of causing harm.

If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a home made pipebomb, or arson, or a car.
The guns aren't the problem, just the most visible impact of the situation.

 

Yea how dare they use peoples deaths to bring in, or even talk about stricter controls on things killing people.

 

Yes, I agree and I suspect this will start happening. It's now reaching a tipping point where hiding behind "free speech" laws and proxies won't cut it any more.

 

First off, there's lots of stuff that kills people, secondly, it also comes down to intent and on how it's done. Not to forget if a tragedy is used in a populistic way as well as used to push for a political agenda.

If you wanna talk about environmental issues we could do that.

 

Then why should guns be excluded from the list of things that kill people and need to be controlled, you're correct that lots of things kill people and that's why (afaik) the majority of those are regulated by the state to reduce their impact or the number of deaths caused by them.

I would argue that intent has nothing to do with it, a death is a death.

No thanks, I just used that as an example of how something used by millions of people and was also killing people has had controls brought in to reduce the amount of people dieing.

 

I'm sure most pro gun people would prefer to as well

I find this statement interesting?

 

The point here is that the argument for gun control would solve the issue of school shootings is wrong, and for reasons explained.

 

You're right that criminals will always find weapons, especially given how many are in circulation in the US. But do you know who it might stop? The angry, isolated, mentally unstable young men who would no longer have easy access to firearms.

As for "whoring dead kids" the other side are just as willing to do the same in the support of their position.

I personally don't see the issue with a system where it's just harder to obtain a firearm, like we have in the UK. Without wanting to seem flippant, Jim Jeffries sums it up pretty well:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

 

It wouldn't stop them from obtaining weapons which is the point here. Look at Breivik in Norway, he was committed enough. There's not many guns in circulation in Norway, as I understand it.

Look, it's the third time we're having this discussion I believe. Our respective positions are known by now.

 

On that we're going to have to disagree, personally I believe if there were less guns there would be fewer deaths from them.

And Norway has a correspondingly lower number of deaths per 100,000 people.
America = 10.64 deaths a year per 100,000
Norway = 1.78 deaths a year per 100,000

 

Brevik was indeed committed, the man was unarguably psychopath who probably would have got the job done whatever the laws.

Are all the kids that shoot up schools in the US the same though? Would they have done it had the option not been so easily available?

If I had been so inclined when I was younger I wouldn't even have known where to start to aquire a gun. Some of my friends had shotguns I suppose but for anything else I would've had to get a train to london and literally just start asking about for a gun. How do you think that would have gone?

 

...and the pro-gun people are scrambling to de-legitimise the valid argument for stricter control, lest someone take away their toys. Business as usual.

That is without doubt one the lamest excuses I've ever read.

 

As a gun lover (Some of them are outstanding pieces of design and engineering), what the **** is wrong with Americans?

Easy access to guns (And yes, I get that there's SOME control, but not enough - Clearly) means its easier to do this kind of ****.

The "You can kill people with other things" argument is ********, too. Especially when cars are used as an example. Guns are designed to kill people, they should not be so easily accessible. As far as I'm concerned, disagreeing with that makes you fundamentally stupid.

 

You're not talking about a country about to introduce gun ownership to its population, they're not starting from nought here.

I don't recall using it as an excuse I pointed out the facts on the ground.