Multiple fatalities reported at Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe it would be if the US would simply...try it?

Why is that so hard to do? Why not just freaking try it? If it doesn't work here, than we go back to the drawing board.
You make it sound so easy. There's a reason many of us in here have given up hope.

If the massacre of kids in Sandy couldn't change anything. Nothing will. The money has its grip tightly around those in power. The people that want better gun control either don't vote for the right people or don't vote at all.
 
does anyone here have a clue what a could be a solution to this issue i?

I am being 100% serious.Like,what could be help reduce the occurrence of these horrendous events in the US (or any first world country facing similar problems)

Is it a mental health epidemic ? Gun control problem ?
 
does anyone here have a clue what a could be a solution to this issue i?

I am being 100% serious.Like,what could be help reduce the occurrence of these horrendous events in the US (or any first world country facing similar problems)

Is it a mental health epidemic ? Gun control problem ?

Its a mixture of a lot of stuff. When Gun control does happen and actually passes they waste time on things like "assault weapons" and ignore what makes up like 95% of all gun violence. Pistols. You are more likely to be beaten to death with a hammer than killed with an assault weapon in the United States.
 
Still confusing. 20 or 26? 15 dead or 10? Still getting mixed reports. You'd think hours later we could have some concrete info.
 
Are you a criminologist? If so what do you think are the causes of copycat crimes?
I get it. I really do. But if you think they're not looking into his background, you're naive.

I think tackling bigger issues such as gun control and mental health are bigger fishes to fry than bloating out his name.

It's part of the reporting process.
 
r9k is the absolute worst so those posts are not in the least bit surprising
 
From a few years back:

http://morguepenpals.yolasite.com/north-america.php

Name *
Chris Harper-Mercer

Age
20

E-mail *
ironcross45@gmail.com

Country (Include State or Province) *
United States, California

Which would you prefer?
E-mail pals

Hobbies
Music, movies, news

About you and what you are looking for in a pen pal.
I'm 20 years old, in college, I like to listen to music, mostly goth/punk/industrial/electronic, and I love to watch movies, Horror movies are the best, but i also like some action films, depending on the type, and I like crime dramas as well.

I'm looking for penpals who are similar to me, but anyone is welcome to email me.

Checks out that he lived in Torrence before moving to Oregon. That email.
 
I get it. I really do. But if you think they're not looking into his background, you're naive.

I think tackling bigger issues such as gun control and mental health are bigger fishes to fry than bloating out his name.

It's part of the reporting process.

The reporting process is bullshit. They are more interested in salacious details and highly biased "expert opinions" than making sure that criminologists have the information they need to build better profiles.
 
Just "try" a blanket ban? It's not that simple. It may be that simple in your mind, but there's a lot of ground to cover before a ban becomes palatable. That's just being realistic, as shitty as it is. I think gun control proponents miss the boat when they jump straight to a ban. They should chip away at smaller reforms until we get to that point.

The political groundwork has to be laid first. That means campaign finance reform, lobbyist reform, redistricting reform. That takes a lot of poison out of the well and opens up more honest discussion. Its the groundwork that has to be laid for a lot of political issues to be dealt with actually.

the next wave would be gaining grassroots support. That and winning a sizable chunk of the legislator and the presidency.

From there things become much easier. A pure gun ban isnt realistic but I do think some tough, strict regulations could be put in place coupled with new requirements to own a gun and feasibly a gun buy back program to reduce supply(similar to Australia's).

I think those are real, tangible ways to move the needle in the right direction. It puts strong oversight in place, reduces gun supply meaningfully and puts infrastructure in place to closely monitor and vet gun owners through licensing, training, evaluations and renewals.
 
It has a different set of challenges. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you'd be an idiot for suggesting they're the same.

Please tell me these, besides "but USA".

We don't even need to ban guns. We just need to stop the goddamn river-sized flow of them around the country.
 
The reporting process is bullshit. They are more interested in salacious details and highly biased "expert opinions" than making sure that criminologists have the information they need to build better profiles.
After that Twitter post I agree. I just think focusing on details like not mentioning his name is trivial.

The crime happened. Even if he was nameless, copycats would find something.

Gun control and mental health should be the focus.

He still has an identity--the Oregon shooter. That's why I think worrying about infamy and copycats is really missing the point here.
 
Please tell me these, besides "but USA".

The United States was established in such a way the Government cannot just decide to ban guns. It would require years of process and the political will is not there and will not be there. Even with the gun Violence the vast majority of Americans including a large chunk that do not own guns are opposed to the idea. Hell just trying to sell additional gun control faces heavy opposition on all sides.
 
So who would answer "Yes" after seeing what happened to the first person? Unless they had a cross.

I don't believe this story
It's actually considered a big sin in Christianity to deny your faith (I know it may seem crazy but I can't deny it). It took a lot of courage for those that answered.
 
You make it sound so easy. There's a reason many of us in here have given up hope.

If the massacre of kids in Sandy couldn't change anything. Nothing will. The money has its grip tightly around those in power. The people that want better gun control either don't vote for the right people or don't vote at all.

Because it should be easy!

No reason to make shit like this that difficult. I fucking hate this! :(
 
Please tell me these, besides "but USA".

We don't even need to ban guns. We just need to stop the goddamn river-sized flow of them around the country.

'but usa' is a fairly decent explanation tbh. The real problem is the mentality in the country. Australia had its minority gun advocates who bitterly opposed the gun buyback scheme but there was never any question in the public sphere that it was doable, that it would be effective, or that in wake of Port Arthur that it was necessary. People looked at one another and thought 'fuck it we don't need pistols in cities'. America in this sense is just totally different and even if the tide is slowly turning the idea of an inviolable second amendment is still ridiculously powerful and bound to cause issues with implementation of any kind, whether actual or just legal.
 
The United States was established in such a way the Government cannot just decide to ban guns. It would require years of process and the political will is not there and will not be there. Even with the gun Violence the vast majority of Americans including a large chunk that do not own guns are opposed to the idea. Hell just trying to sell additional gun control faces heavy opposition on all sides.

I'm not talking about banning guns. Australia still has guns. They haven't had a mass shooting though since they decided to pass stricter gun laws.


We're both Western Democracies. We're both first world. Why can Australia do it but we can't?
 
'but usa' is a fairly decent explanation tbh. The real problem is the mentality in the country. Australia had its minority gun advocates who bitterly opposed the gun buyback scheme but there was never any question in the public sphere that it was doable, that it would be effective, or that in wake of Port Arthur that it was necessary. People looked at one another and thought 'fuck it we don't need pistols in cities'. America in this sense is just totally different and even if the tide is slowly turning the idea of an inviolable second amendment is still ridiculously powerful and bound to cause issues with implementation of any kind, whether actual or just legal.

I think if you lift a lot of poison out of the well, meaning dealing with the structural issues I laid out in my post a few posts back, you can create a much more transparent discussion that will better translate the will of the people and their legislators.

The will of the people which has shown to support gun control in the right steps.
 
After that Twitter post I agree. I just think focusing on details like not mentioning his name is trivial.

The crime happened. Even if he was nameless, copycats would find something.

Gun control and mental health should be the focus.

He still has an identity--the Oregon shooter. That's why I think worrying about infamy and copycats is really missing the point here.

What makes a mentally ill person think that it's better to shoot a bunch of people than to publicly masturbate in a park.
 
One of the top 3 presidential candidates running for the GOP ladies and gentlemen.

“Obviously, there are those who are going to be calling for gun control,” Carson said of the event, which left at least 13 people dead. “Obviously, that’s not the issue. The issue is the mentality of these people.” He said instead of focusing on guns, we should be looking for “early warning clues” to prevent incidents such as this one.


“What I worry about is when we get to the point were we say we need to have every gun registered,” Carson said. He continued, “we have to know where the people are and where their guns are, that’s very dangerous. And that I wouldn’t agree with at all.”
 
I'm not talking about banning guns. Australia still has guns. They haven't had a mass shooting though since they decided to pass stricter gun laws.


We're both Western Democracies. We're both first world. Why can Australia do it but we can't?

NA6oIwF.gif
 
Trump says it's a mental health issue, he's right.

Obama says he need to fix the gun laws, he's right.

What is going on here?

What's going on is that trump isn't right and is just using mental health as a scape goat so as to take the blame off guns. America has no more mental health issues than the rest of the world, yet nowhere else has these sort of issues in terms of gun related deaths. Why do you think that is?

Some of these incidents are caused by mental health, others aren't (althought it's usually blamed for it). Whatever the case they wouldn't happen if guns weren't so readily available, you only have to look anywhere else to see this is the case.

That's not to say mental health isn't an issue, it is and not just in America. Globally it's an issue that doesn't get the attention or funding it deserves. However it is not the cause of Americas gun problems.

Edit: the people bringing up mental health don't give a fuck about actually improving mental health. If trump got in power he would do nothing to actually help that cause. If anything they add to the negative stereotype associated with mental health by constantly blaming it for problems like this.

The 8500 gun related deaths this year aren't all caused by mental health, they are all related to gun control. No amount of smokescreening and blame shifting will change that.
 
One of the top 3 presidential candidates running for the GOP ladies and gentlemen.

And yet not one of the candidates has a proposal that will expand mental health coverage or research as part of their platforms.

Thats why these cries are hollow at best, disgusting at worse.

Because at their core they are using it as a deliberate shield to block discussion on gun control and if they actually do think it is a mental health issue they clearly don't give much of a shit because they have zero policies to address it. Which makes their actions basically speak for them and say "we don't actually care."
 
I often wondered, if the forefathers could see what America was like in 2015, would they have continued to put in that right to bear arms amendment?

I'm not American (Canadian), but if they saw the absolute shit that goes down today in USA, and the advancements in gun technology and the ease of acquiring guns....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom