Oikos university shooting

Recommended Videos

Rastien

Pro Misinformationalist
Jun 22, 2011
1,221
0
0
imahobbit4062 said:
I love how people try to actually reason with complete morons like Omega. Making guns illegal doesn't stop criminals owning them, they're criminals for fuck sake.
You say that but school shooting etc are more or less unheard of britain googling it has chucked up one horrific event in scotland in 1996. It is pretty difficult to get guns in the UK (to a degree), but with this said we are a small country which may indeed contribute to this figure.
 

Robert Ewing

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,977
0
0
Wow, sucks hard D:'

I wonder how long it will take for video games to be blamed, as the guy who did it pulled a trigger. And there a plenty of depictions of trigger pulling in games.
 

Archroy

New member
Sep 30, 2010
47
0
0
Just out of interest, when these mass shootings happen, do they tend to be committed with legally held firearms or illegally held ones?
 

Archroy

New member
Sep 30, 2010
47
0
0
farson135 said:
Archroy said:
As to the issue of whether you are more at risk if there is a gun in your house, the following links have interesting information, particularly regarding children and firearms.
Not again. You have posted on several topics where I went over this. Here we go again-

The person who handled that survey was not a criminologist or a sociologist but was instead a biologist. His methods were perfectly appropriate for studying bacterial cultures but NOT human behavior.

He did not take time into account. Why is that important? Because most suicides with guns are either within the first few months of purchase (implying that the gun was bought with the intention of committing suicide) or the gun has been present for generations (given enough time every family will have someone commit suicide). Also in terms of murder if the gun was bought in immediately then the purpose might have been murder OR the firearm might have been bought for the purpose of protection from a perceived threat that just happened to materialize.

Also he did not even take into account WHETHER OR NOT THE GUN IN THE HOME WAS EVEN USED. Seriously, if a burglar just broke in and killed the gun owner in his/her sleep and the victims gun was never used it still counted.

There are other problems as well but those are the main points.
Did you click on those links or are you just making assumptions? The links I posted contain information about the dangers of having guns in the house when you have kids.
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
Robert Ewing said:
Wow, sucks hard D:'

I wonder how long it will take for video games to be blamed, as the guy who did it pulled a trigger. And there a plenty of depictions of trigger pulling in games.
Nah, when adults are the ones doing the killings they usually blame guns, as if that solves fucking anything. The dude that did this is in his forties.
 

Vryyk

New member
Sep 27, 2010
393
0
0
reonhato said:
Vryyk said:
reonhato said:
Vryyk said:
Saying things like
reonhato said:
you can be mugged at gun point 1000 times and 999 times if you do nothing the criminal wont hurt you at all, if you respond by pulling a gun and trying to kill the criminal you are not going to get him 1000 times in a row, sometimes its going to end in your death
and
reonhato said:
everything we know says you are more likely to be killed if you try and defend yourself.
without any sort of facts or sources doesn't offer very substantiative debate fuel, I can't really argue against arbitrary, made up statistics and expect to win, can I?
go look up the other gun threads. there have been numerous links to various sources just over the last few months in various threads. im not going to go through the trouble of getting them again and again when most of the pro gun people on this forum like farson and CM have shown time and time again they do not care what the studies say because they know best from personal experience and the NRA says guns are good so anything otherwise must be a lie.
Well, if you're not willing to provide facts I don't really know what else I can say. You have to be willing to qualify statements made out to be facts, and the burden of proof doesn't rest on me when you make an argument based off of these supposed "facts".
i have provided facts and there are studies to show it. i have given you the location of sources, if you are too lazy to go check them out then that is your problem not mine.

the fact that so many americans like you do not know that guns increase your risk, that escalating violence is a bad thing, shows just how ignorant your country is. the sheer number of people who keep a gun in the house for safety despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests it is more dangerous to keep a gun then not have one at all makes me feel sorry for those trying to fight the uphill battle against ignorance in america.
"Laziness" has nothing to do with it, if you make a case and back that case with supposed "facts", it's your job to qualify those statements and provide sources for those "facts", not mine. This is pretty basic when it comes to debates of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

If I were to say "most gun owners are geniuses" or something equally baseless and opinionated, it would be on me to corroborate my statement with facts.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,301
0
0
omega 616 said:
Yeah, the guy wants to rob you, not kill you. You want to kill him 'cos he wants to rob you ... where is the confusion?
The 'Confusion' is actually what he's there to do. You are assuming he is just there to rob me. And while that may be the most likely case, it makes no sense for me to assume that.

Do you know what a career criminal is? They don't get cash for the severity of the crime, they get cash by selling your shit. your corpse is prison time they don't want when they are caught.
Perhaps. Maybe they're willing to risk it. They're willing to risk prison time just by being in my house, that's up to them not me.

So why own a gun and what would you do in that scenario? Just tell me, every time I ask this nobody tells me! They go like politians and dance round it!
Sure. I'll tell you. Each scenario has a number of variables, so I'll present a specific one. It's night, I'm asleep with my wife in bed. Suddenly there's a loud crash and the sound of my home alarm system screeching. Bear starts barking and I am out of my bed. I tell my wife to call 911 while I retrieve and load my Mossberg. I figure by this point if the asshole hasn't left yet, he has no compunction about getting caught. I find him, take aim and tell him to show me his hands. If he bolts - oh well. If he complies, great. If he does anything remotely threatening, however, I'll have to make an appointment with Stanley Steamer Carpet Cleaners. Clear enough?

So you're assuming with no other thought than "he has broke one law, why not more" that he will kill you? Yeah, those guys on weed sure are doing a lot murders, frauds and rapes these days ....
Right...there's no difference between someone who hits the reefer and someone who breaks into a house.

You aren't dispensing justice? This sounds like just that! "But NO ONE gets to threaten me. NO ONE gets to threaten my wife. NO ONE gets to threaten my children" that certainly sounds like you want to serve your own kind of justice.
That isn't justice, that's self defense. Justified, not justice.

So somebody in your house, you somehow get your gun on him first, if he runs you forget about it but if he starts to aim or otherwise threaten you, you kill him? Correct?
Correct.

yeah, I will stick with bloodthirsty.
Because I don't wanna get shot? Huh. I guess 'bloodthirsty' means something different over there than it does here. Here it means a desire to kill for sake of killing, which I have stated is not the case.

Don't send them over here, we suck with the whole in prison bit. At least we have more arrests than fatal shootings though.
But at least you won't have to worry your head at night that out there, somewhere, a criminal might get hurt.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Vryyk said:
reonhato said:
Vryyk said:
reonhato said:
Vryyk said:
Saying things like
reonhato said:
you can be mugged at gun point 1000 times and 999 times if you do nothing the criminal wont hurt you at all, if you respond by pulling a gun and trying to kill the criminal you are not going to get him 1000 times in a row, sometimes its going to end in your death
and
reonhato said:
everything we know says you are more likely to be killed if you try and defend yourself.
without any sort of facts or sources doesn't offer very substantiative debate fuel, I can't really argue against arbitrary, made up statistics and expect to win, can I?
go look up the other gun threads. there have been numerous links to various sources just over the last few months in various threads. im not going to go through the trouble of getting them again and again when most of the pro gun people on this forum like farson and CM have shown time and time again they do not care what the studies say because they know best from personal experience and the NRA says guns are good so anything otherwise must be a lie.
Well, if you're not willing to provide facts I don't really know what else I can say. You have to be willing to qualify statements made out to be facts, and the burden of proof doesn't rest on me when you make an argument based off of these supposed "facts".
i have provided facts and there are studies to show it. i have given you the location of sources, if you are too lazy to go check them out then that is your problem not mine.

the fact that so many americans like you do not know that guns increase your risk, that escalating violence is a bad thing, shows just how ignorant your country is. the sheer number of people who keep a gun in the house for safety despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests it is more dangerous to keep a gun then not have one at all makes me feel sorry for those trying to fight the uphill battle against ignorance in america.
"Laziness" has nothing to do with it, if you make a case and back that case with supposed "facts", it's your job to qualify those statements and provide sources for those "facts", not mine. This is pretty basic when it comes to debates of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

If I were to say "most gun owners are geniuses" or something equally baseless and opinionated, it would be on me to corroborate my statement with facts.
The reason he doesn't like to show his sources is because Farson showed him the problem underlying nearly all his numbers: It only accounts for intruders shot, not those who brandishing a weapon was enough to scare away. It also doesn't account for people with illegal guns killing their family as well, or people with criminal histories.

He's done this before, too.
 

Vryyk

New member
Sep 27, 2010
393
0
0
CM156 said:
The reason he doesn't like to show his sources is because Farson showed him the problem underlying nearly all his numbers: It only accounts for intruders shot, not those who brandishing a weapon was enough to scare away. It also doesn't account for people with illegal guns killing their family as well, or people with criminal histories.

He's done this before, too.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
omega 616 said:
senordesol said:
omega 616 said:
Oh yeah, I forgot about that thought process of "break the law you are nothing but scum in a pond". Most human life is worth more than whatever you own in your home, especially if you can get all that stuff back for nothing.
Correct. *Most* human life. As in Folks who are able to go about their day without making victims of their fellow man. Of course what you fail to consider is that 'whatever you own' in your home also includes the lives and safety of yourself and your loved ones. Now life insurance exists, sure, but I somehow doubt it will quite cover the loss of your spouse or child.
When I say most, I mean the real scum ... not the guy who stole your $10 wallet with $20 inside, your phone and your ipod. I mean the guy who shot up the island in Norway (I think), the people who sell sex slaves or Fritzl.

When a person breaks into your house what do you think they are interested in? Your life or what you have? The only reason I can think of that a robber would take a life is if you confront him/her.

Which is why they say if you are mugged in the street don't hand your wallet over, throw it left and run right or vice versa.

Killing for possessions makes you just as bad as them.
I'm happy to hear that you have no problem rolling over and showing your belly to which ever random criminal is looking to make you their next victim. Some of us have a spine though and won't be made a victim of so easily.

If someone attacks me, or breaks into my home, or tries to rob me their life becomes forfeit. I have a conceal carry permit and I will not hesitate to protect myself and my property with lethal force if necessary. I'm not going to wait to determine nor do I care if the person is just after my laptop or he's looking to hurt me. I'm going to shoot him until he stops twitching for being a fucking criminal breaking into my house. If people don't want to die during the committing of a crime then they probably should refrain from committing crimes. Seems simple enough to me at least.

One of the main purposes of government is to protect it's citizens and their property. However, if they are in a situation where the government is failing in this duty citizens are within every ethical and moral right to protect their own well being and property. And seeing as we all can't have our own policeman following us around 24/7 there are guaranteed to be times when it's up to the individual to protect themselves or their property.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Vryyk said:
CM156 said:
The reason he doesn't like to show his sources is because Farson showed him the problem underlying nearly all his numbers: It only accounts for intruders shot, not those who brandishing a weapon was enough to scare away. It also doesn't account for people with illegal guns killing their family as well, or people with criminal histories.

He's done this before, too.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.
I'm flipping through the posts, and I'm unable to find it. Perhaps Farson himself would know where it was.

Sorry, but I can't be of more help for that.
 

Vryyk

New member
Sep 27, 2010
393
0
0
CM156 said:
Vryyk said:
CM156 said:
The reason he doesn't like to show his sources is because Farson showed him the problem underlying nearly all his numbers: It only accounts for intruders shot, not those who brandishing a weapon was enough to scare away. It also doesn't account for people with illegal guns killing their family as well, or people with criminal histories.

He's done this before, too.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.
I'm flipping through the posts, and I'm unable to find it. Perhaps Farson himself would know where it was.

Sorry, but I can't be of more help for that.
No problem, thanks for looking.
 

Dr. Dice Lord

New member
Feb 4, 2010
175
0
0
reonhato said:
stun gun, pepper spray, rape whistle, yelling. all methods that are non lethal and carry far less risk than a gun, not only that they also work just as well or better.

americas mind set on this issue is what one can only describe as fucked up. most of the developed world realised guns in the hands of civilians only makes things worse a long long time ago. just like with health care, when it comes to guns america is the retard of the developed world, they are just really slow to get it.
Stun guns, one shot only and if you miss, your getting murdered, raped, or something else. Pepper spray, can be ignored by violent perps, go watch some videos if you want; its not going to stop most violent people. Rape whistle, yeah, because that would help a woman alone at night possibly nowhere near other people. Yelling, really?

Also, from your argument that America is the "retard" of the world clearly shows that you're bringing nothing but bias and misinformation to bear on this argument, why don't you save yourself some time and stay out of things you clearly don't understand. Bad guys will always, no matter what the government does, have guns. Though the government can very easily take away law-abiding citizen's rights to own firearms. So how exactly does restricting gun ownership make the citizen safer?

It doesn't. It takes guns out of the hands of the responsible populace and leaves them in the hands of off-the-grid criminals. You may advocate a defenseless, helpless citizenry but American's will simply never share your timid mindset. Call us "retards" if you like, but it won't change how we conduct our affairs here, and the fact we have some basic freedoms here most of the developed world simply forbids.

And I know you won't agree, because the police, pepper spray and tazers are all a person "needs" to be safe.

So next time a violent criminal with a gun is breaking in through your front door, would you rather have a cop on the phone? Or a gun in your hand?
 

Archroy

New member
Sep 30, 2010
47
0
0
farson135 said:
Archroy said:
As to the issue of whether you are more at risk if there is a gun in your house, the following links have interesting information, particularly regarding children and firearms.
Not again. You have posted on several topics where I went over this. Here we go again-

The person who handled that survey was not a criminologist or a sociologist but was instead a biologist. His methods were perfectly appropriate for studying bacterial cultures but NOT human behavior.

He did not take time into account. Why is that important?
Because most suicides with guns are either within the first few months of purchase (implying that the gun was bought with the intention of committing suicide)
How do you know this?

or the gun has been present for generations (given enough time every family will have someone commit suicide).
Again, how do you know? I personally only knew one person who killed themself. One per family, eventually, seems like an awful lot.

Also in terms of murder if the gun was bought in immediately then the purpose might have been murder
Yes it might, or it might not. It might be that they wanted what some people call a useful, nay necessary tool; or they were exercising their constitutional rights and all that. Maybe they just liked to look at the thing.

OR the firearm might have been bought for the purpose of protection from a perceived threat that just happened to materialize.
It seems to me that many gun owners do buy them for protection from a possible future threat that sometimes materializes. So what? They still bought the thing.

Also he did not even take into account WHETHER OR NOT THE GUN IN THE HOME WAS EVEN USED. Seriously, if a burglar just broke in and killed the gun owner in his/her sleep and the victims gun was never used it still counted.
I don't know about this, as I haven't read the survey. Someone earlier in the thread made mention of the subject and I had a quick google and those links were what I found. They focus on the issue of children living in households with guns.

From this link:

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

"According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries."
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 101 ?105

"What are the risks for teens?
Parents of teenagers are less likely to store firearms safely [7]. This is a big concern, since most firearm injuries happen to teens. Teens are at greater risk of attempting suicide, and a suicide attempt with a gun is likely to be deadly. More than 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are deadly, and teens in homes with firearms are at higher risk for committing suicide [8]."

[7] Johnson RM, Miller M, Vriniotis M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Are household firearms stored less safely in homes with adolescents?: Analysis of a national random sample of parents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Aug;160(8):7

[8] Committee on Adolescents. American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. Suicide and suicide attempts in adolescents. 2000 Apr;105(4 Pt 1):871-4.


From here:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4535/index1.html

We read:

"The data show that many firearms in homes with children are dangerously accessible. In 9 percent of homes with children and firearms, at least one firearm is stored unlocked and loaded, and in another 4 percent at least one firearm is unlocked, unloaded, and stored with ammunition. This means that in about 13 percent of homes with children and firearms--about 2.6 million children in 1.4 million homes--firearms are stored in a way that makes them most accessible to children. Overall, fewer than half of the U.S. families with firearms and children store firearms locked (either in a locked place or secured with a trigger lock) and separate from ammunition. "

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/6/1247.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11943968?dopt=Abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/2/e109.full

Tl;dr: people think that their bundle of joy is special and would never play with a gun if they found one. This is not the case.


"In presenting early findings from this survey to a panel of law enforcement officers, we witnessed myriad demonstrations of this "selective blindness" phenomenon, in which adults who agree in principle that guns should be stored in ways that are inaccessible to children do not see the need for caution with their own children. Gun safety is thus framed as a matter of protecting other people's children, rather than one's own. While police officers were quick to embrace the idea of teaching others of the need to properly secure their firearms, both male and female officers who had children in their homes were open in admitting that they did not?and would not, even after the presentation?secure their firearms with locks or lock boxes. The number one rationale we heard from this audience? My kids know better. "

Bolded by me.
Edit to add this link bout teenage suicide from the AAP:
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/emotional-problems/Pages/Teen-Suicide-and-Guns.aspx

"Studies have shown that the risk of suicide is 4 to 10 times higher in homes with guns than in those without."
" Suicide attempts with a gun are very likely to be deadly."
"Suicide attempts with drugs or methods other than guns have a greater chance of survival."
"Most young survivors of a serious suicide attempt do not commit suicide later, and most survivors of suicide attempts are glad they were saved."
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
why is this a gun issue?

it was committed by a psycho who would have killed anyway or gotten a gun off the streets, and it went down in an area that guns are not allowed, you know...a school.

these are freak fucking accidents and people who try and make this about guns (no matter what side) are just as stupid as people who blame video games.

how about blaming the guy who SHOT SEVEN PEOPLE!!!!
 

Dr. Dice Lord

New member
Feb 4, 2010
175
0
0
I just wanted to add, for all the proponents of taking guns out of the hands of the American citizenry, go look up the murder and crime rates for Israel, a country where just about every male owns an assault rifle and compare them to the US, where only a portion of the population is armed. Israel statistically is a much safer place to live, even though everyone has a gun, and there could be bombing or terrorist attacks.

Gee, maybe responsible, trained gun use is a good thing for protecting the people? Surely not though, we just need more rape whistles and everything will be all right.
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
Dr. Dice Lord said:
I just wanted to add, for all the proponents of taking guns out of the hands of the American citizenry, go look up the murder and crime rates for Israel, a country where just about every male owns an assault rifle and compare them to the US, where only a portion of the population is armed. Israel statistically is a much safer place to live, even though everyone has a gun, and there could be bombing or terrorist attacks.

Gee, maybe responsible, trained gun use is a good thing for protecting the people? Surely not though, we just need more rape whistles and everything will be all right.
and switzerland, dont forget the swiss where everyone owns a military style assault rifle....

awesome.