Oikos university shooting

[senordesol]

DESERVES to get shot

And here is the ongoing problem with America: We continue to hold onto the idea that shooting anybody is acceptable. Nobody should be killed. The fact that we consider it okay to think somebody threatening us is a good reason to kill someone is the entire fucking reason it's so common for people to get killed in situations that...

Hear that folks? If someone threatens you, let him do what he wants. You'll still be dead or raped or wounded. But you'll have the moral high ground in Deshara's eyes.

That's all that matters.

 

[Nieroshai]

snip

Ah, the lord of war "bigger stick theory". The "we have guns 'cos they have guns. So if they shoot us, we can shoot back" ideal. Where is the diplomacy in it?

simply and quickly this isnt the guns fault, the guy was a nut job who wanted to kill some people and if he didnt have a gun he would have had road rage or burnt a building down or killed people anyway without using firearms (hell if he had any respect for human life this wouldnt have happened, looking someone in the eyes and killing them is hard with or without a gun)

guns are not the problem people are the problem and the sooner anti-gun people realise this the better

The difference is: road rage is by car, cars are useful for transport. Whatever he did to burn down the building them products would have been useful for something and it's easier to get away from a fire than a gun man. Knives are useful in the kitchen among other things.

Guns have only 1 reason for being, to kill. Sure, take away all guns and nutters will kill with something that has a useful reason for being.

Guns are the problem, the next best option to a gun is a knife and to kill with a knife is a personal thing. You have to be up close but with a gun you can be hundreds of feet away, thus taking you out of the situation almost.

I have heard multiple times on those prison programmes that it is so much easier to kill with a gun.

I await the day a pro gun person walks me through the exact situation where having a gun is good thing 'cos in every situation I see it being useless.

That scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark comes to mind. Because Indy had a gun, no one had to be in range of the guy with a sword. Also, since when does ownership of a gun make someone violent. It isn't people with guns that kills, it's violent, psychotic people with guns that kills. And those very people would also be willing to use explosives and knives. Most mad bombings I've ever heard of were done with homemade explosives.

Also, take the scenario of one student bringing a gun to school. That gun was brought on campus despite the law to begin with. The IRA has guns despite Britain's gun laws. But if, say, the teacher was armed or something, the whole situation could be minimalized. If things got to that point, the armed potential victim could save a lot of lives by eliminating the mad gunman who like I said would have a gun whether it was legal or not.

 

[omega 616]

Its not that we assume that they want to kill us its that we know that people are illogical and unpredictable you don't know what they are going to do. You think you know what people are going to do all of the time, we don't make that assumption.

So it's just "fuck 'em all, let god sort them out"?

No trying to diffuse the situation or whatever, just "must kill law breaker"?

Who the fuck needs police!?

No, what ever god you believe in has nothing to do with it, and I did not say killing should ever be the first resort it should be the last, I'm saying that I would not simply rollover and let rapists/murderers/thieves do what ever they want to me and my family. And if there is a police officer there to take care of it then I would of course then them deal with it, I'm just not going to hope that the cops just happen to show up.
I would still like to know what you think should be allowed to be defended with lethal force.

Dooooode! I have already said, in my last post I think, what lethal force should be used on.

I don't believe in a god ... it's a quote from the die hard games.

So in order of first resort to last resort, walk me through EXACTLY what you would do: a person breaks into your house while you are snuggled up on the sofa. He points a gun at you and is screaming to sit still, then proceeds to toss your house.

Aaaaaaand, go!

Seriously, I am eager as can be to know how you react.

Me? I'd drop a brick, stuff my phone down the couch, be like "take what you like" and sit there, call the cops when they leave.

SOOO MANY QUOTES!

Blood thirsty you say. Interesting. Strange even, since I am not breaking into the homes of others to threaten them or their families. But I'm the blood thirsty one... somehow.

Okay. So if someone has a gun drawn and pointed at my face before I can even react; owning a gun or not owning one doesn't matter. So I don't know what you're trying to prove with that scenario as the only way to resolve it would be without my firearm.

As to a thief's motivations; well since he did not send me any sort of written notice beforehand of what his intentions are, whether or not he'd be willing to add murder to his wrap sheet (if he hasn't already) is beyond my power to guess. Seems like it'd be a foolish thing to do, yes, but then I wouldn't call kicking in someone's door all that intelligent either. All I know is he's willing to break multiple laws just by being here, why not more?

If giving him the benefit of the doubt can get you killed, why risk it? What sense does it make? I'm no judge, jury, or executioner. I am not dispensing 'justice'. I am a man just trying to defend my home from an assailant of unknown intent.

Now just to be 100% clear. If I do not feel my life is in danger, then there is no need to kill anyone -I'll agree with that. If he bolts or surrenders, then he's now the police's problem. But I'm not going to stake my life or the lives of my loved ones on the assumption that he's no threat to me. No sir.

No, I am not blood thirsty. I value life. I sincerely hope I never have to take one. But NO ONE gets to threaten me. NO ONE gets to threaten my wife. NO ONE gets to threaten my children. Because I value our lives a Hell of a lot more than anyone else's. If that's too 'aggressive' for your European sensibilities...Hell, maybe we should start sending our criminals over there.

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?

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.

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!

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 ....

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.

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?

yeah, I will stick with bloodthirsty.

Don't send them over here, we suck with the whole in prison bit. At least we have more arrests than fatal shootings though.

snip

It's 3:05 am and that post is just all kinds of fucked up, I have no idea who said what 'cos you messed up the quoting. So have another go while I sleep!

 

[Macgyvercas]

Yeah 'cos the dozen or so other times this has happened never actually happened. I can think of two off the top of my head and I am pretty sure there is a third famous one, there is Columbine and Virginia tech.

I know I am going to get quoted into the floor but I still cannot think of a situation where allowing civvies to carry guns is a good idea!

1) You're missing University of Texas at Austin, 1966.
2) Hunting. I like venison. Even more so when I kill it myself.

 

[Vryyk]

2) Hunting. I like venison. Even more so when I kill it myself.

Dear God, this is pretty much the only answer needed. I've eaten so many delicious venison fajitas in the last month, if I wasn't allowed a gun how could I murder delicious quadrupeds, butcher them, and put them in a tasty tortilla next to cheese and ranch dressing?

 

[Macgyvercas]

2) Hunting. I like venison. Even more so when I kill it myself.

Dear God, this is pretty much the only answer needed. I've eaten so many delicious venison fajitas in the last month, if I wasn't allowed a gun how could I murder delicious quadrupeds, butcher them, and put them in a tasty tortilla next to cheese and ranch dressing?

And now I want venison fajitas, and it's 10:13 PM where I'm at. I hope you're happy!

 

[Vryyk]

2) Hunting. I like venison. Even more so when I kill it myself.

Dear God, this is pretty much the only answer needed. I've eaten so many delicious venison fajitas in the last month, if I wasn't allowed a gun how could I murder delicious quadrupeds, butcher them, and put them in a tasty tortilla next to cheese and ranch dressing?

And now I want venison fajitas, and it's 10:13 PM where I'm at. I hope you're happy!

I can't hear you over all the venison fajitas I'm eating.

Seriously though, try cutting an extra big flank cut next time you butcher, put a skewer through it, douse it in olive oil, crushed garlic cloves, minced onion and black pepper, then fire roast it for about two hours. Lawdy it makes a delicious roast.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I'm sorry but until America gets over it's love for guns and stop treating a killing tool as a safety blanket the safer the country will be for them.

I know I am going to get quoted into the floor but I still cannot think of a situation where allowing civvies to carry guns is a good idea!

Sucks for the families and I wish it never happened to them though.

I'm not even a gun nut, but a person who's actually responsible with a gun has the power to prevent situations like this.

Making them illegal (for one, will never happen in the US), is in not going to stop people like this from obtaining fire arms. It's happening whether we like it or not, so people should definitely have the right to have one for themselves.

 

[Darknacht]

guns are not the problem people are the problem and the sooner anti-gun people realise this the better

People with guns are the problem.

It is absurd that we license and register drivers and cars but not shooters and guns.

I say this as a veteran with a marksmanship ribbon who hunts, if you're curious.

This is true, I don't think guns should be banned but they should defiantly be licensed and registered in all cases.

I had to have a background check done on me and had to have each of my guns registered to me when I bought them, is it different in your state?

My state requires registration if you by from a dealer, but I don't think it does if you buy from an individual and many states have much weaker gun laws.

So in order of first resort to last resort, walk me through EXACTLY what you would do: a person breaks into your house while you are snuggled up on the sofa. He points a gun at you and is screaming to sit still, then proceeds to toss your house.

Aaaaaaand, go!

Seriously, I am eager as can be to know how you react.

Me? I'd drop a brick, stuff my phone down the couch, be like "take what you like" and sit there, call the cops when they leave.

If they have a gun there is not much you can do the idea is if they have something less then a gun you can defend your self. So if they have a bat or a knife and they break in you can pull your gun and tell them to get out. Most of the time they probably would, however if they charge you or your family then you can defend with lethal lethal force. What would you do if they did not just want to rob you? Would you just let them do whatever they wanted?
I don't have a gun I am decently proficient with a sword and I have found from experience that a sword will scare off robbers in my home fairly well.

 

[chadachada123]

School shooters are pussies, and weak to boot.

If I wanted to kill as many people as possible, guns wouldn't be the tool used. Guns can hardly do anything in such a small area and in such a small time.

Me, I'd use a large, large vehicle, through the middle of a mall or otherwise crowded area. Combine that with some explosives (which are deviously easy to create, and cheap too), and you've got quite the powerful arsenal.

Sucks that some asshole flipped his lid enough to harm innocent civilians. Wonder what made him do it.

Realistically, if I decided to end it all, I wouldn't take it out on innocents. I'd go after the couple of bastards that made my life hell.

If this sounds sociopathic, then eh, that's alright. I hope none of this somehow breaks the rules, I clearly would not ACTUALLY take a life, I'm only being hypothetical, and calling serial killers spineless pricks.

 

[Vryyk]

Yeah 'cos the assumptions and generalizations like "I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after" are ok. Just read some of the pro gun things and all of them say the exact same thing, kill him before he hurts me.

There are others like "he's in my house, he must be killed" or "he is breaking the law, he must be killed" attitude, like 0 to extreme in no time at all.

By the way, why do you seem to think that the only way to use a gun is to kill someone? If someone came into my house through the kitchen and tried to shake down my roommate for valuables it wouldn't be hard for me in my bedroom to grab my carbine and simply hold it on the criminal while I waited for the cops to show up.

Hell, I could even scare him off with a threat or warning shot (not that warning shots are terribly safe, I'd shoot at the ceiling from another room to spook him off if anything). I'm well trained and an excellent shot, but blindly shooting him is obviously risky and I'd rather defuse it bloodlessly, this idea that gun owners are just looking for a excuse to murder someone is silly.

 

[chadachada123]

Yeah 'cos the assumptions and generalizations like "I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after" are ok. Just read some of the pro gun things and all of them say the exact same thing, kill him before he hurts me.

There are others like "he's in my house, he must be killed" or "he is breaking the law, he must be killed" attitude, like 0 to extreme in no time at all.

By the way, why do you seem to think that the only way to use a gun is to kill someone? If someone came into my house through the kitchen and tried to shake down my roommate for valuables it wouldn't be hard for me in my bedroom to grab my carbine and simply hold it on the criminal while I waited for the cops to show up.

Hell, I could even scare him off with a threat or warning shot (not that warning shots are terribly safe, I'd shoot at the ceiling from another room to spook him off if anything). I'm well trained and an excellent shot, but blindly shooting him is obviously risky and I'd rather defuse it bloodlessly, this idea that gun owners are just looking for a excuse to murder someone is silly.

*PHEW* I thought you were going to try and suggest that a person should "shoot to wound," which always happens in these kinds of threads. Instead, you spoke sense, which is good to see.

For future commenters: There is no such thing as "shoot to wound." (Edit: unless you are a highly-trained professional, and even then, only the cream of the crop) You do not fire a firearm at another person unless you are prepared to kill him. When you do shoot, you shoot until the threat is eliminated. With cases where assailants stayed standing after 10+ bullets went through them, you should not be expected to stop shooting until you know damn-well that the threat is gone, or your gun is empty.

 

[viranimus]

Actually the surprising thing to me about this is that the story has been on the internet for a few hours and there has yet to be a large wave of people railing on Christians bringing this on themselves for hundreds of years of over zealous behavior.

Sad really Im actually relieved that its focused on gun control issues rather than another story to focus on the evils and ignorance of religion.

Gun control is simple for me. I hate to sound NRAish, but they will take my firearms (or my melee weapons for that matter) when they pry them from my cold dead hands. Not giving them up because I know that not having guns does not make people any safer, It might mean less gun related crimes, but it would also mean that what crimes that do get committed are going to be much more brutal, painful and much harder to determine.

However I have absolutely no problem with making people accountable for their weapons. Full and complete registration and licensing needs to be required. You have to have a license to drive, theres no logical argument (unless you live on private wooded property) for not making any gun other than a rifle or shotgun used for the purposes of hunting to not require license and registration. No gun owner who owns a weapon should be opposed to that because it is a reasonable request.

The only real problem with that sort of mandate and what is the source of much of the resistance is that people will invariably try to use this step down allowance to registration to continue to push the envelope and will not relent until private gun ownership is illegal. Do you think that the anti gun crowd would simply pack it up and call it a day if all private gun ownership required each firearm to be licensed and registered? Of course they wouldnt. And thats why there is resistance in the US to gun control.

Anyway. getting back on track. Sympathies for those who have been lost and those who cared about them.

 

[Vryyk]

Yeah 'cos the assumptions and generalizations like "I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after" are ok. Just read some of the pro gun things and all of them say the exact same thing, kill him before he hurts me.

There are others like "he's in my house, he must be killed" or "he is breaking the law, he must be killed" attitude, like 0 to extreme in no time at all.

By the way, why do you seem to think that the only way to use a gun is to kill someone? If someone came into my house through the kitchen and tried to shake down my roommate for valuables it wouldn't be hard for me in my bedroom to grab my carbine and simply hold it on the criminal while I waited for the cops to show up.

Hell, I could even scare him off with a threat or warning shot (not that warning shots are terribly safe, I'd shoot at the ceiling from another room to spook him off if anything). I'm well trained and an excellent shot, but blindly shooting him is obviously risky and I'd rather defuse it bloodlessly, this idea that gun owners are just looking for a excuse to murder someone is silly.

*PHEW* I thought you were going to try and suggest that a person should "shoot to wound," which always happens in these kinds of threads. Instead, you spoke sense, which is good to see.

For future commenters: There is no such thing as "shoot to wound." (Edit: unless you are a highly-trained professional, and even then, only the cream of the crop) You do not fire a firearm at another person unless you are prepared to kill him. When you do shoot, you shoot until the threat is eliminated. With cases where assailants stayed standing after 10+ bullets went through them, you should not be expected to stop shooting until you know damn-well that the threat is gone, or your gun is empty.

Hell no, I was trained to shoot by soldiers, I would never suggest that crap. "Shoot to wound" has so little relevance with my 7.62x54R or .45 ++acp anyways.

Even if I could pull off an arm or leg shot while missing their arteries with any kind of regularity, you don't pull a trigger without wanting to send someone home in a bag. I would never point a gun at someone even in jest unless they were threatening my life.

 

[Lionsfan]

Not touching the gun-law debate with a ten-meter pole, but this is a horrible tragedy, thoughts going out to all of the families involved

 

[Chevalier noir]

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

Be compliant and they wont do anything. It's when you start walking round like some spec ops guy, glock in hand, when shit escalates and bullets start flying.

I am not saying he should be robbing you but it seems most Americans have the same callas point of view as you do, I think it comes from your government.

I just think, the person robbing you just wants quick cash, so just give it to him and get it back latter. The American way is "oh shit you scared me" *bang!* "that'll teach you to threaten me!"

Its apparent that you live in a fantasy world where you know with 100% certainty that anyone physically assaulting/robbing you "only wants your money" really, some world you occupy.

The rest of us live in the real world where violence and rape are very real possibilities and we have no reason to assume that someone who is stealing from you by threatening you with violence is totally gonna stop there if we just do as the nice man says. No reason at all. You, in truth have no freaking clue what a majority of violent crimes are like.

I'm not even on the pro-gun side here, I just found this particular argument to be the most offending to common sense.

Hyperbole FTW!

Yhea, it was in your post. I cut out the bullshit about the war, considering it was totally off topic and stupid to include.

 

[Anthony Wells]

snip

Ah, the lord of war "bigger stick theory". The "we have guns 'cos they have guns. So if they shoot us, we can shoot back" ideal. Where is the diplomacy in it?

simply and quickly this isnt the guns fault, the guy was a nut job who wanted to kill some people and if he didnt have a gun he would have had road rage or burnt a building down or killed people anyway without using firearms (hell if he had any respect for human life this wouldnt have happened, looking someone in the eyes and killing them is hard with or without a gun)

guns are not the problem people are the problem and the sooner anti-gun people realise this the better

The difference is: road rage is by car, cars are useful for transport. Whatever he did to burn down the building them products would have been useful for something and it's easier to get away from a fire than a gun man. Knives are useful in the kitchen among other things.

Guns have only 1 reason for being, to kill. Sure, take away all guns and nutters will kill with something that has a useful reason for being.

Guns are the problem, the next best option to a gun is a knife and to kill with a knife is a personal thing. You have to be up close but with a gun you can be hundreds of feet away, thus taking you out of the situation almost.

I have heard multiple times on those prison programmes that it is so much easier to kill with a gun.

I await the day a pro gun person walks me through the exact situation where having a gun is good thing 'cos in every situation I see it being useless.

you know that rearely guns are used by the people who own them when they commit crimes..? and bannign guns wont stop them...the blackmarket will still get you stuff in a snap.. hoenstly the argument over wether to ban guns or not is a stupid one... fine ban them and watch crimes like these not stop. at all. and crime rate not go down at all.

 

[Lucane]

and I imagine this latest exponent of the 'godgiven right to bear arms' will have been affected by it as well.

What does this mean, exactly?

The U.S. of A has "Right to bear Arms" so he means the shooter would of been affected by shooting people and not being able to aim as well after hitting his first target if they've never gone hunting animals before or undergone military and/or police training.