Oikos university shooting
- Thread starter JesterRaiin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This.martyrdrebel27 said:
The point is that diplomacy will not get you everywhere. You can't talk your way through everything, sometimes things need brute force.
And besides, all the information i found on the internet didn't really scare me. From what i found you have about 3-4x the chance of getting murdered in the U.S. than you do in the U.K. , or a .003% higher chance. And a great chunk of this comes from drug dealers and gangs fighting for territory. Those two don't do crime because of guns, they just use guns to commit them, so if you don't get involved a good chunk of that .003% gets taken off.
Other than that crime in the U.S. is pretty close to the rest of the world.
You guys make it seem like there are people dying left and right and everyone constantly walks around in fear of getting shot.
firearm murder is even decreasing.
So if someone robs me, I'm expected to just sit back and let them take whatever the hell they want and trash my house? What happens if the police don't find your stuff? What happens if you don't have insurance? If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head. Maybe where you live, criminals are polite and will only take what they need without harming you or breaking stuff. Here, they will beat the shit out of you, break you windows, break into your car, trash your house, then make off with the most valuable stuff they can find. How about you come live where I live, then tell me guns should be banned.omega 616 said:
I live not even 30 mins from this school. Its a scary thing when its so close to home and noone but the media is talking about it.
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".reonhato said:
Absolutely horrible. It amazes me that some people can commit acts like this.
Another thing that amazes me is how the US lobbyists see the solution.
Rest of the world: Guess they need tighter gun control laws so mental people can't get guns.
American lobbyist: If everyone there had a gun, they coulda done shot dat sumb***h.
Not saying all or even the majority of Americans look at it that way. However, everyone knows it's the lobbyists who make the laws in the US.
Another thing that amazes me is how the US lobbyists see the solution.
Rest of the world: Guess they need tighter gun control laws so mental people can't get guns.
American lobbyist: If everyone there had a gun, they coulda done shot dat sumb***h.
Not saying all or even the majority of Americans look at it that way. However, everyone knows it's the lobbyists who make the laws in the US.
Speaking for the article itself, I'd imagine that there was a clear motive for this. In general when the police detain someone after an incident like this, they question them, and if the motives are truely insane they will tell the media, if they are somewhat sympathetic then the police tend to sit on the information as long as possible to avoid encouraging people to similar actions. This is why things like the Heemeyer incident are a big deal due to information control failing (Heemeyer being the guy who was screwed by a town on a real estate deal, with his land being seized for profit. He modified a bulldozer into a makeshift tank and proceeded to start bulldozing the town, wrecking several buildings, and doing signifigant damage to the town hall before committing suicide. He did not kill anyone if I remember, but it was a big deal for a while... info can be found under his name as well as topics like 'Killdozer' even if he didn't kill anyone. There was also news footage on Youtube of him doing his thing).
The way it sounds to me, and this is purely speculation, is that the guy was screwed by the school and/or fellow students. I'd imagine he was expelled or kicked for monetary reasons given that he disappeared for months (most teachers and students would not know the details). One of the borked things about the system is that in such cases there is oftentimes no real legal recourse because if your fighting with a small school, chances are you can't afford to hire a lawyer and get justice. In such cases attacking the business and killing customers (in this case students) is a way of costing them money because of the way the memories of the incident can taint them for years, especially if the motives come out (ie if the business... and a school like this is a business even if it claims to be a charity, is outed for having screwed someone it can be seen as responsible for the deaths by provoking the retaliation). You see similar things with disgruntled employees all the time.
Please understand that this by no means makes what he did acceptable, especially seeing as the guys being killed in cases like this rarely had anything to do with the situation directly (so it's quite unfair on an individual level), I'm just speculating based on other incidents, and what is NOT being said here given that they apprehended the guy. I could be totally wrong, it's just an educated guess as to what this was probably about.
If I'm correct, I think discussions about violence and gun control are irrelevent. Limiting such things won't help the central problem and just make people even more powerless. Ultimatly I think the central issues for cases like what this one seems to be is the powerlessness of the individual against businesses and those in power when they are wronged due to the way our legal system works and how the laws are heavily weighted in favor of businesses, schools, and goverment agencies, with the poor and desperate being unable to afford the cost of even having a civil case heard, never mind the risk of being stuck with the other guy's legal fees and wind up suffering even worse after being screwed. Rectify the central situation and I think you'll see less disgruntled people opening fire like this and trying to get any bit of vengeance they can when they hit rock bottom.
That's my thoughts at any rate.
The way it sounds to me, and this is purely speculation, is that the guy was screwed by the school and/or fellow students. I'd imagine he was expelled or kicked for monetary reasons given that he disappeared for months (most teachers and students would not know the details). One of the borked things about the system is that in such cases there is oftentimes no real legal recourse because if your fighting with a small school, chances are you can't afford to hire a lawyer and get justice. In such cases attacking the business and killing customers (in this case students) is a way of costing them money because of the way the memories of the incident can taint them for years, especially if the motives come out (ie if the business... and a school like this is a business even if it claims to be a charity, is outed for having screwed someone it can be seen as responsible for the deaths by provoking the retaliation). You see similar things with disgruntled employees all the time.
Please understand that this by no means makes what he did acceptable, especially seeing as the guys being killed in cases like this rarely had anything to do with the situation directly (so it's quite unfair on an individual level), I'm just speculating based on other incidents, and what is NOT being said here given that they apprehended the guy. I could be totally wrong, it's just an educated guess as to what this was probably about.
If I'm correct, I think discussions about violence and gun control are irrelevent. Limiting such things won't help the central problem and just make people even more powerless. Ultimatly I think the central issues for cases like what this one seems to be is the powerlessness of the individual against businesses and those in power when they are wronged due to the way our legal system works and how the laws are heavily weighted in favor of businesses, schools, and goverment agencies, with the poor and desperate being unable to afford the cost of even having a civil case heard, never mind the risk of being stuck with the other guy's legal fees and wind up suffering even worse after being screwed. Rectify the central situation and I think you'll see less disgruntled people opening fire like this and trying to get any bit of vengeance they can when they hit rock bottom.
That's my thoughts at any rate.
Think its pretty much being already answered but its not the physical capability to do so but the phsycological.Matthew94 said:
First time might be easy but you have to look at all the faces of the people around them and the fear in their eyes and the crying the sounds of people begging for their lives. Even the most fucked up calaous bastard is gonna have major issues with this, these people aint soliders.
I feel i should end this post on something more cheerful but i can't really thats the long and the short of it :/.
Okay something completely tastless but its a cat.
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.
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/pages/Gun-Safety-Keeping-Children-Safe.aspx
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/6/1247.abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/2/e109.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11943968?dopt=Abstract
Some quotes from the first one:
A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.
A gun kept in the home triples the risk of homicide.
The risk of suicide is 5 times more likely if a gun is kept in the home.
Advice to parents
The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home.
For those who know of the dangers of guns but still keep a gun in the home.
Always keep the gun unloaded and locked up.
Lock and store the bullets in a separate place.
Make sure to hide the keys to the locked boxes.
The other links contain information about research done with kids to determine how they behave when they come across a gun and what effect, if any, instructing them about gun safety beforehand has. The general conclusion is that kids with and without knowledge of gun safety act more or less the same when they come across a gun. Many kids will handle the gun and quite a number of them will pull the trigger with sufficient force to have fired it were it loaded.
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/pages/Gun-Safety-Keeping-Children-Safe.aspx
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/6/1247.abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/2/e109.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11943968?dopt=Abstract
Some quotes from the first one:
A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.
A gun kept in the home triples the risk of homicide.
The risk of suicide is 5 times more likely if a gun is kept in the home.
Advice to parents
The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home.
For those who know of the dangers of guns but still keep a gun in the home.
Always keep the gun unloaded and locked up.
Lock and store the bullets in a separate place.
Make sure to hide the keys to the locked boxes.
The other links contain information about research done with kids to determine how they behave when they come across a gun and what effect, if any, instructing them about gun safety beforehand has. The general conclusion is that kids with and without knowledge of gun safety act more or less the same when they come across a gun. Many kids will handle the gun and quite a number of them will pull the trigger with sufficient force to have fired it were it loaded.
I always love hearing about how "defenseless" I am if I and the people around me are not allowed to carry guns on our persons. America's developed this mindset where "if we don't have guns, we can't protect ourselves" when nothing could be further from the truth. The average human can cross ten yards in the time it takes someone to fire two semi-automatic rounds, and that's just pulling the trigger, forget about things like accuracy or aiming at a moving target.
I remember an article from about seven years ago or so where an elementary school in Texas got in trouble with the parents because it hired an ex-military guy to teach the kids how to defend themselves against a shooter. Parents were incensed because this man had the gall to tell their kids to put themselves in harm's way to stop a man from harming them. And that mentality has never gone away.
I'm with the pro-gun crowd in that people will kill you regardless of the laws in place if they are so inclined to. But I'm with the anti-gun crowd in that giving everyone guns solves the problem. It's not a deterrent to the mentally disturbed (since logic doesn't enter their reasoning), and there's a much higher chance of collateral damage because of people firing in a crowded classroom. People CAN defend themselves regardless of guns, and it's much safer in terms of the people around you to defend yourself without a gun.
TL;DR: You don't need guns to protect yourself, they just make things easier for you and life potentially more dangerous for the people around you.
I remember an article from about seven years ago or so where an elementary school in Texas got in trouble with the parents because it hired an ex-military guy to teach the kids how to defend themselves against a shooter. Parents were incensed because this man had the gall to tell their kids to put themselves in harm's way to stop a man from harming them. And that mentality has never gone away.
I'm with the pro-gun crowd in that people will kill you regardless of the laws in place if they are so inclined to. But I'm with the anti-gun crowd in that giving everyone guns solves the problem. It's not a deterrent to the mentally disturbed (since logic doesn't enter their reasoning), and there's a much higher chance of collateral damage because of people firing in a crowded classroom. People CAN defend themselves regardless of guns, and it's much safer in terms of the people around you to defend yourself without a gun.
TL;DR: You don't need guns to protect yourself, they just make things easier for you and life potentially more dangerous for the people around you.
This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).martyrdrebel27 said:
This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.
In the modern world, there's no revolution without at least some of the military on your side, so the argument that people need firearms to keep their government accountable with the threat of uprising is talking out of their ass.