Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Do we know of any particular reasoning yet?

No stated reason or manifesto that I'm aware of, and we're not getting one because he's dead.

I did read somewhere that he was 26 and hadn't ever had a girlfriend. I seem to recall some similar 'virgin killer' a couple years ago, but I suspect that's a symptom, not a cause, of the mental illness that causes this sort of behavior.

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Yep, the number of the guns in the US has increased as the number of people owning guns has decreased. Pesky facts and all that.

And tell me about the violent crime rate.

yes please tell us about it, the only ones I found ended in 2011. can you show the numbers for 2014 and how that trended from 2011?

This gak is pretty easy to find, people.

but you see where you went wrong though, that's violent crimes as a whole. Now find the homicide rates from guns up to and including 2014.

Read my quote: "violent crime." I didn't misrepresent a single thing.

■In 2006, firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the Nations murders, in 42.2 percent of the robbery offenses, and in 21.9 percent of the aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.) (Based on Table 19 and Expanded Homicide Data Table 7.)

■In 2007, offenders used firearms in 68.0 percent of the Nation’s murders, 42.8 percent of robberies, and 21.4 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.) (Based on Robbery Table 3, Aggravated Assault Table, and Expanded Homicide Data Table 6.)

■In 2008, offenders used firearms in 66.9 percent of the Nation’s murders, 43.5 percent of robberies, and 21.4 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and Aggravated Assault Table.)

■Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in
67.1 percent of the Nation’s murders, 42.6 percent of robberies, and 20.9 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)

■Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)

■Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)

■Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 69.3 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.0 percent of robberies, and 21.8 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)

Firearms were used in 69 percent of the nation’s murders, 40 percent of robberies, and 21.6 percent of aggravated assaults (weapons data is not collected on rape incidents).

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I feel that personal gun ownership is a relic of a time when it was needed. IMO it isnt anymore

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I feel that personal gun ownership is a relic of a time when it was needed. IMO it isnt anymore

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


but you see where you went wrong though, that's violent crimes as a whole. Now find the homicide rates from guns up to and including 2014.

Read my quote: "violent crime." I didn't misrepresent a single thing.

But since I'm so nice:



Gun homicides down.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
so somewhere between 7 and 15 people died (LA times to NYdailynews)

4chan will likely be blamed (Certain news outlets are looking into /r9k/ because yesterday someone made a thread that started with "Don't go to school tomorrow if you're in the NW" with a picture of pepe the frog holding a gun)

2 week rant by the left saying we need do something about guns and baby killing asalt clips
2 week rant by the right saying we need more mental health screenings.

The guy who carried out this shooting will be plastered on every news channel, along side his kill count.

If the person is White/hispanic/asian he will be decried as mentally unstable and that people should of noticed sooner.

If the person is black/middle eastern he will be the victim of American Racism.

 stanman wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I feel that personal gun ownership is a relic of a time when it was needed. IMO it isnt anymore

So your personal opinion should override the rights of millions of people who feel otherwise? (legal law abiding gun owners)

Talk about entitled.

 Ahtman wrote:

 stanman wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I feel that personal gun ownership is a relic of a time when it was needed. IMO it isnt anymore

So your personal opinion should override the rights of millions of people who feel otherwise? (legal law abiding gun owners)

Talk about entitled.

The 'millions of people who feel otherwise' are being just as entitled. What an odd argument to present.

 CptJake wrote:
Not really

 CptJake wrote:
the constitution and case law is on the side of those millions.

 CptJake wrote:
They just want their current right to remain as is. They are not trying to impose their will on hotsauceman as he would like to impose his will on them. There is a difference.

 Ahtman wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Not really

Yes really.

 CptJake wrote:
the constitution and case law is on the side of those millions.

Millions of non-Constitutional scholars, non-lawyers, and non-historians think saying "but it is the law" suddenly makes the discussion beyond reproach. How entitled of them.

 CptJake wrote:
They just want their current right to remain as is. They are not trying to impose their will on hotsauceman as he would like to impose his will on them. There is a difference.

Excluding the fact that they really are, expressing a thought and a feeling on the subject doesn't mean one is any more imposing than another.

Abstract:
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:
-- The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
-- 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
-- Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
-- In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
-- Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
-- Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
-- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
-- States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
-- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 stanman wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I feel that personal gun ownership is a relic of a time when it was needed. IMO it isnt anymore

So your personal opinion should override the rights of millions of people who feel otherwise? (legal law abiding gun owners)

Talk about entitled.

The 'millions of people who feel otherwise' are being just as entitled. What an odd argument to present.

Not really, the constitution and case law is on the side of those millions. They just want their current right to remain as is. They are not trying to impose their will on hotsauceman as he would like to impose his will on them. There is a difference.

 CptJake wrote:
Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.

Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.

 Ahtman wrote:
Calling it 'lawful' doesn't stop the conversation anymore than it stops the USA from being the world leader in shootings like this. Saying "we have a right to this" is just as much an imposition as "we don't have a right to this". Pretending there is no room for conversation and acting like the subject isn't something people can talk about shows just as much intractability as the people one complains about being intractable.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.

Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.

The definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more people, it was used this way in 2013. With the same definition the number is already up and there will be a lot more in the coming months. They might just be 4 people groupings, or they can be sandy hook numbers, only time will tell. Isn't it sad we can predict how many more there will be. Because nothing is being done to slow the trend, or stop the trend.

 whembly wrote:
Here's an interesting study...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2629704

Spoiler:

Abstract:
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:
-- The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
-- 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
-- Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
-- In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
-- Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
-- Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
-- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
-- States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
-- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.

TL;DR: 1% increase in adults with CCW = 25% reduction in murder rate.

 Ahtman wrote:
Calling it 'lawful' doesn't stop the conversation anymore than it stops the USA from being the world leader in shootings like this. Saying "we have a right to this" is just as much an imposition as "we don't have a right to this". Pretending there is no room for conversation and acting like the subject isn't something people can talk about shows just as much intractability as the people one complains about being intractable.

Look i get it, 2nd amendment hooray. But honestly, guns are far from well regulated, getting a Driver's license is a much stricter process than buying a guy down at your local shop.

The news reports show a "good guy with a gun" isnt going to do anything, plenty of other people on campus had concealed guns they were carrying around and didnt act.

Having a gun free zone wont work, as obviously people that are going to perpetrate these things dont care.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Here's an interesting study...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2629704

Spoiler:

Abstract:
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:
-- The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
-- 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
-- Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
-- In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
-- Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
-- Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
-- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
-- States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
-- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.

TL;DR: 1% increase in adults with CCW = 25% reduction in murder rate.

TL;DR: Written by John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center.

I would suggest you make even a cursory look into his research and standings, as it makes his findings a LOT more questionable.

 SickSix wrote:

Look i get it, 2nd amendment hooray. But honestly, guns are far from well regulated, getting a Driver's license is a much stricter process than buying a guy down at your local shop.

Ah glad you brought this up. Can we now discuss the weapon of genocide that is the automobile and what we are going to do about it?

The news reports show a "good guy with a gun" isnt going to do anything, plenty of other people on campus had concealed guns they were carrying around and didnt act.

Sources please.

Having a gun free zone wont work, as obviously people that are going to perpetrate these things dont care.

Hey now you have the right idea!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Well since you asked for a source,have a source

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/02/3708410/good-guy-with-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/

As for automobiles, I agree drunk driving pentalties should be more severe.

 cincydooley wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Well since you asked for a source,have a source

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/02/3708410/good-guy-with-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/

As for automobiles, I agree drunk driving pentalties should be more severe.

Oh, so he saw the shooter?

He was in the room with the shooter?

Oh wait, he was in a different building on campus?

Yep, that's relevant.

WrentheFaceless wrote:plenty of other people on campus had concealed guns they were carrying around and didnt act.

cincydooley wrote:Oh, so he saw the shooter?

He was in the room with the shooter?

Oh wait, he was in a different building on campus?

Yep, that's relevant.

 Ahtman wrote:
Calling it 'lawful' doesn't stop the conversation anymore than it stops the USA from being the world leader in shootings like this. Saying "we have a right to this" is just as much an imposition as "we don't have a right to this". Pretending there is no room for conversation and acting like the subject isn't something people can talk about shows just as much intractability as the people one complains about being intractable.