Mass shooting in Roseberg, Oregon

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Co'tor Shas**

CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:

What would prevent these shootings from happening?

Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.

And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.

Actually, I've always wondered about that. Is gun crime going down faster or slower than violent crime total? Because violent crime has dropped signifigantly it would be interesting to see how much gun crime has dropped in relation.

**kronk**

-Shrike- wrote:
kronk wrote:
usconservatives.about.com/
I'm not sure the source is unbiased.
You don't say...?

That's why I prefaced it. However, I'm just looking for a breakdown of deaths by gun per type.

**Prestor Jon**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

Well, you're wrong.

DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.

And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?

Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.

**CptJake**

Co'tor Shas wrote:

Actually, I've always wondered about that. Is gun crime going down faster or slower than violent crime total? Because violent crime has dropped signifigantly it would be interesting to see how much gun crime has dropped in relation.

As far as I am concerned, violent crime going down is a good thing, and I always felt it was silly to focus on the mechanism of the violence instead of the fact it was a violent crime. Gun, fist, baseball bat makes no difference to me.

**-Shrike-**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

Well, you're wrong.

DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.

And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?

Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.

But can the government prevent you from owning certain types of firearms?

**Prestor Jon**

kronk wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
kronk wrote:
usconservatives.about.com/
I'm not sure the source is unbiased.
You don't say...?

That's why I prefaced it. However, I'm just looking for a breakdown of deaths by gun per type.

That data is freely available via the FBI crime stats. Hopefully we can all agree that the FBI crime statistics aren't politically biased?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

**sirlynchmob**

CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:

What would prevent these shootings from happening?

Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.

And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.

and the guy who just shot up the school was a lawful gun owner the day before the shooting. Lawful gun owners are just one shooting away from being murderers & violent criminals.

SO because one gak bag goes completely off the rails, you want to lump the millions who do not into the same category. It is your right to do so.

* By the way, have they released how/where he got the gun or even type of gun yet? All I've heard was 'hand gun' and saw a picture from the crime scene focusing on a shell casing which lends credence to that.

Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.

For this one it hasn't been released yet, but as we see here in point 1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
almost all mass shooters had obtained their guns legally, so it can reasonably be assumed this one did as well. But as guns are so freely accessible, you don't need to get one illegally, I'm surprised they're not given out as happy meal toys at McD's.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:

So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".

Two curious choices for you to pick.

So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"

**Prestor Jon**

-Shrike- wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

Well, you're wrong.

DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.

And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?

Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.
But can the government prevent you from owning certain types of firearms?

Yes. That was expressly ruled upon in US v Miller and the NFA Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_v._Miller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

**Co'tor Shas**

cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".

Two curious choices for you to pick.

So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"

Well, they are both very contentious issues, and, with changes in the supreme court over time, we may see changes in them. Especially CU v. FCC, as it was a 5/4 decision that happens (relatively) recently.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
America is going to keep it's guns, and we'll be back here in however many months it is til the next one of these.

Hopefully it's a lot of months.

Obama's speech was great. We'll see if it gets followed up with anything substantive, but that was the best I'd seen him on any topic in a long while.

Obama can afford to talk like that, because he's out the door in a year's time. We may see the 'real' Obama coming through in the next few months on various issues, for the simple reason he's not up for re-election and can tread on toes.

As for anything substantive, not a chance. If Obama proposed that Christmas day should fall on the 25th December, the Republicans would block it.

Nothing substantive will happen but not because of Obama, but because historically substantive changes have always struggled to get passed by Congress for reasons that have pretty much been consistently the same. In my lifetime there have been 2 substantial federal gun laws passed, the creation of NICS for background checks run by FFL dealers and the assault weapons ban that was passed with a sunset clause and subsequently not renewed. Conversely, we know have more states issuing more concealed permits than ever making it easier for more citizens across the country to own and carry firearms. On the whole, we've moved to be more permissive than restrictive with firearm ownership so it's unlikely for that trend to suddenly be discounted by the politicians in Congress.

In the 19th and for most the 20th century, SCOTUS were quite happy to uphold gun control laws.

Hell, before Heller, SCOTUS ruled 4 times that the 2nd wasn't a blanket individual right to own arms.

And its not. However it IS a right to own firearms by an individual.

**cincydooley**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Pepper Sprays and Tasers do the same thing. This is why many security guards(Including me) carry them. This whole Idea of "Adreniline will keep em going" is a hack.

I mean, this is just patently false. And has been proven falls time after time.

Hell, we have instances where GUNSHOTS don't stop assailants immediately.

My hope is you're not serious. It's a false hope, I know. But I'll maintain it nonetheless.

**Prestor Jon**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".

Two curious choices for you to pick.

So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"

Well, they are both very contentious issues, and, with changes in the supreme court over time, we may see changes in them. Especially CU v. FCC, as it was a 5/4 decision that happens (relatively) recently.

It takes more than just a change in justices to overturn a SCOTUS decision. A new court can't just choose to overturn a previous ruling. Somebody needs to have a case dealing with that specific issue, appeal it, take the appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, SCOTUS has to agree to hear it and then rule on it. It's not as if every time a new judge is confirmed to SCOTUS that they get to revisit every SCOTUS case and hold a new vote on it.

**CptJake**

sirlynchmob wrote:

Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.

For this one it hasn't been released yet, but as we see here in point 1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
almost all mass shooters had obtained their guns legally, so it can reasonably be assumed this one did as well. But as guns are so freely accessible, you don't need to get one illegally, I'm surprised they're not given out as happy meal toys at McD's.

So in 12 or so of 61 cases since 1982....

Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

**Frazzled**

sirlynchmob wrote:
whembly wrote:

What would prevent these shootings from happening?

Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.

Try it Canadian. Just try.

**hotsauceman1**

cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".

Two curious choices for you to pick.

So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"

Im starting to think you are not right dude, when most if not all your arguments are insults and not actual counter-arguments, something is wrong.

**Co'tor Shas**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".

Two curious choices for you to pick.

So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"

Well, they are both very contentious issues, and, with changes in the supreme court over time, we may see changes in them. Especially CU v. FCC, as it was a 5/4 decision that happens (relatively) recently.

It takes more than just a change in justices to overturn a SCOTUS decision. A new court can't just choose to overturn a previous ruling. Somebody needs to have a case dealing with that specific issue, appeal it, take the appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, SCOTUS has to agree to hear it and then rule on it. It's not as if every time a new judge is confirmed to SCOTUS that they get to revisit every SCOTUS case and hold a new vote on it.

Well yes, it takes a bit, but, again, with changes in the supreme court over time, people will say "oh, I can probably get this passed now" and pass laws that violate the old decision with hope of getting a new one. That's how it works.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.

When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!

Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!

EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control

yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.

**Prestor Jon**

CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.

For this one it hasn't been released yet, but as we see here in point 1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
almost all mass shooters had obtained their guns legally, so it can reasonably be assumed this one did as well. But as guns are so freely accessible, you don't need to get one illegally, I'm surprised they're not given out as happy meal toys at McD's.

So in 12 or so of 61 cases since 1982....

Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

Good luck getting anywhere trying to have a cogent reasonable argument with the angry lynch mob there Atticus.

**Ouze**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Pepper Sprays and Tasers do the same thing. This is why many security guards(Including me) carry them. This whole Idea of "Adreniline will keep em going" is a hack.

This is deeply, deeply deficient in facts, especially that last sentence.

If you would like to know more, you can watch this video, which is long. Cut to 13 minutes in.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".

Two curious choices for you to pick.

So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"

Im starting to think you are not right dude, when most if not all your arguments are insults and not actual counter-arguments, something is wrong.

Why argue with someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and what SCOTUS has done.

**sirlynchmob**

CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.

For this one it hasn't been released yet, but as we see here in point 1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
almost all mass shooters had obtained their guns legally, so it can reasonably be assumed this one did as well. But as guns are so freely accessible, you don't need to get one illegally, I'm surprised they're not given out as happy meal toys at McD's.

So in 12 or so of 61 cases since 1982....

Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

now compare that to the 247 mass shootings this year alone. compared to the "voter fraud" problem, this is a hugely epic problem. So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.

**Smacks**

Frazzled wrote:
Why argue with someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and what SCOTUS has done.

Please could we attach names with insults? This topic is moving quite fast and it's hard to follow.

**Prestor Jon**

sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.

For this one it hasn't been released yet, but as we see here in point 1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
almost all mass shooters had obtained their guns legally, so it can reasonably be assumed this one did as well. But as guns are so freely accessible, you don't need to get one illegally, I'm surprised they're not given out as happy meal toys at McD's.

So in 12 or so of 61 cases since 1982....

Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

now compare that to the 247 mass shootings this year alone. compared to the "voter fraud" problem, this is a hugely epic problem. So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.

There are numerous state constitutions that repeat the individual right to own firearms that is also in the US constitution. It's not as if the 2nd Amendment is the sole law regarding firearms ownership in the US. But don't let facts get in the way of your diatribes.

**Co'tor Shas**

Prestor Jon wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.

For this one it hasn't been released yet, but as we see here in point 1:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
almost all mass shooters had obtained their guns legally, so it can reasonably be assumed this one did as well. But as guns are so freely accessible, you don't need to get one illegally, I'm surprised they're not given out as happy meal toys at McD's.

So in 12 or so of 61 cases since 1982....

Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

now compare that to the 247 mass shootings this year alone. compared to the "voter fraud" problem, this is a hugely epic problem. So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.

There are numerous state constitutions that repeat the individual right to own firearms that is also in the US constitution. It's not as if the 2nd Amendment is the sole law regarding firearms ownership in the US. But don't let facts get in the way of your diatribes.

So...? On the federal level, state constitutions do not matter (IIRC).

**hotsauceman1**

Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".

Two curious choices for you to pick.

So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"

Im starting to think you are not right dude, when most if not all your arguments are insults and not actual counter-arguments, something is wrong.

Why argue with someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and what SCOTUS has done.

Doesnt mean I have to agree with SCOTUS, Personal gun ownership is not needed in the united states and has done more harm then good.
If guns where not so readily available to buy, we would not have the level of gun violence we would.
And on the same, why talk to me at all? IF you dont like what im saying and you think i have a fundamental misunderstanding, why insult? OR say anything at all?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Pepper Sprays and Tasers do the same thing. This is why many security guards(Including me) carry them. This whole Idea of "Adreniline will keep em going" is a hack.

This is deeply, deeply deficient in facts, especially that last sentence.

If you would like to know more, you can watch this video, which is long. Cut to 13 minutes in.

When I had an assailant on the job, pepper spray worked fine to get him off me.
Same with my friend and his Taser when he got a Knife pulled on him on the job.
Heck look at this video where police take a man down with just pepper spray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4

**whembly**

sirlynchmob wrote:
So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.

Is this wishful thinking or are you trying to argue that we don't have individual rights to guns?

**Ahtman**

Person A: X is a problem we should address probably.

Person B: But it is Constitutional™.

Person A: Well then I guess we have to ignore it.

**hotsauceman1**

We do not, the 2nd amendment, is read properly, states you do not.

**cincydooley**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Doesnt mean I have to agree with SCOTUS, Personal gun ownership is not needed in the united states and has done more harm then good.
If guns where not so readily available to buy, we would not have the level of gun violence we would.
And on the same, why talk to me at all? IF you dont like what im saying and you think i have a fundamental misunderstanding, why insult? OR say anything at all?

This presumes most firearms used in the commission of a murder (hint: a capital felony) are obtained legally (hint: they aren't).

When I had an assailant on the job, pepper spray worked fine to get him off me.
Same with my friend and his Taser when he got a Knife pulled on him on the job.
Heck look at this video where police take a man down with just pepper spray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4