Active-shooting incident reported at community college in Oregon

Their homicide rate had been decreasing steadily for a decade prior to their total ban. That slow decline changed very little (and the murder rate actually went up significantly for a while) after their total gun ban.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

It's worth noting that in 1995, about 20% of homicides in Australia were committed with firearms. In 2003 (the last year that graph shows) it was somewhere around 15~18%.

Great site that shows very little change, if any over that time period:


Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
figure_12.png


Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
figure_13.png


The net change is marginal at best.
 
Last edited:
Hypothetical question:
If you were to come upon the active shooter, and you were not in direct danger, if you were to pull your firearm and shoot him, what are the legal ramifications? Technically, you are a hero for saving who knows how many lives....but, what does the law say?
 
Hypothetical question:
If you were to come upon the active shooter, and you were not in direct danger, if you were to pull your firearm and shoot him, what are the legal ramifications? Technically, you are a hero for saving who knows how many lives....but, what does the law say?

You were in fear for your life.
 
Hypothetical question:
If you were to come upon the active shooter, and you were not in direct danger, if you were to pull your firearm and shoot him, what are the legal ramifications? Technically, you are a hero for saving who knows how many lives....but, what does the law say?

You'll find that people who stop crimes rarely get hassled by prosecutors. It's really bad for the public image and for gun laws in general to prosecute heros.
 
Hypothetical question:
If you were to come upon the active shooter, and you were not in direct danger, if you were to pull your firearm and shoot him, what are the legal ramifications? Technically, you are a hero for saving who knows how many lives....but, what does the law say?

There are a few issues to deal with here.

First, let us separate the legal ramifications of your actions from the moral righteousness of your actions. If you see a human or humans in immediate danger and have the ability to intervene on their behalf, should you do so? I pose this as a question to you, not a topic for debate.

Second, are you willing to live by your moral code regardless of what the charlatans who presume to be the arbiters of good will say about you and do to you?

Finally, most jurisdictions will treat action taken to stop violent crime as justifiable. You are still going to have a bad day, your life may still be ruined, and your legal fees may crush you. That depends on where you live.

My personal aspiration has always been that when/if I find myself in a situation where action is called for, that I will do the right thing, and not be paralyzed by my fear of the consequences. That this is even an issue should be viewed as a stain on what calls itself a free society.
 
This BS about Executive Actions is getting way out of hand; Trump talked about it with what he wants and now Clinton. They both should be pelted with rotten fruit.

This is was a contributing factor for the Revolutionary War, all the rules from the king that got changed on a whim and you were held liable.

We should all just resolve to refuse to comply, submit, or bow down. Don't register or turn in - make them make hard choices, because you know they never will. Again it's an election year, did you see how the Dems are talking about bringing it up for a vote no matter what and all the posturing? Classic election year BS - that never gets anything done, keep the Low Info Voter entertained.

I haven't heard if the guy was on meds yet. I haven't heard about any psychological run ins. What laws would have prevented this? The British/Aussy model as since he wasn't a 'criminal' the chances of him getting a gun drop dramatically. Of course, you have to be willing to sacrifice the thousands that defend themselves every year to save less than 100; but with the way they count in DC they would think it was a good trade.


*****************http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mo...f-keeping-firearms/ar-AAf84rl?ocid=spartandhp

Yes on meds - and his mother had him put in a psychiatric facility when he didn't take them; the article states around 2010 she had him admitted for not taking the meds.

Quote from the article: “She said that my son is a real big problem of mine,” Ms. Jefferson said in a telephone interview. “She said, ‘He has some psychological problems. Sometimes he takes his medication, sometimes he doesn’t. And that’s where the big problem is, when he doesn’t take his medication.’ ”
 
Last edited:
We don't need more anti-gun laws. The last 2 mass shooters ranted about not having girlfriends. So rather than violating the rights of gun owners by denying them their property and 2nd amendment rights, lets violate the rights of women instead and force them to entertain these maniacs...

.....because that would be about as effective... And hell - isn't it a human right to have access to sex? I mean if it's a right to have access to health care, a house, a car, a phone, a TV w/ cable and HBO, surely access to sex is also a right... It's for the children... Don't these women want to save their children?


/sarcasm
 
Is there an actual list of what they think they can do via executive actions? It has been a busy weekend and I have not had time to keep up.

Unfortunately, no; 0bama said he couldn't do anything about immigration via EO, and about a year later he did. These politicians will do whatever they want whenever they want, if they start talking EO's - look out ANYTHING is on the table.
 
Good data. Here is the US violent crime rate charted over the SAME period as the AU data (source is the fbi.gov data at https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls):

attachment.php


Here is the us MURDER rate through 2012:

attachment.php


And here is the US violent crime rate through 2012:

attachment.php


Even more to the point, the murder rate in AU has begun to rise again - a 30% jump from 2013-2014 (2013 was a really low # year, so looking at a more typical year - a 19% jump from 2012).

Something other than gun control happened to the rate of murder in .AU. It was happening before their gun ban, just like it was happening in the US before and after the US's "AWB."

-M

Great site that shows very little change, if any over that time period:


Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
figure_12.png


Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
figure_13.png


The net change is marginal at best.
 

Attachments

  • 1993-2007US.jpg
    1993-2007US.jpg
    11.3 KB · Views: 109
  • 1993-2012US.jpg
    1993-2012US.jpg
    10.6 KB · Views: 106
  • 1993-2012USM.jpg
    1993-2012USM.jpg
    10.5 KB · Views: 104
Last edited:
Unfortunately, no; 0bama said he couldn't do anything about immigration via EO, and about a year later he did. These politicians will do whatever they want whenever they want, if they start talking EO's - look out ANYTHING is on the table.

Hilldawg said she wanted to make people who sell "enough" guns privately treated to dealers and subject to 4473 and background checks. She also wants to make manufacturers and dealers liable for nut-job mass shootings, which, as has been said before, is like holding Ford liable for drunk driving deaths.

I suspect Obama might steal some of that thunder for Uncle Joe.

An Executive Order should be treated as Tyrannical Overreach, because, by design, it is being used to circumvent Constitutional procedures.
 

So, while much of SC is drowning in water, 0bama will head to OR to make another campaign-style stump speech to dance of the corpses of murder victims.

Just IMAGINE if Bush did something similar after hurricane Katrina!! I guess Obama hates Southerners and black people or just cares about his political agenda more than the people in SC where more people have died from the flooding than from last week's shooting.

If the Repubs had half a brain, they would be turning this into a commercial and tag Shillary as more of the same...
 
So, while much of SC is drowning in water, 0bama will head to OR to make another campaign-style stump speech to dance of the corpses of murder victims.

Just IMAGINE if Bush did something similar after hurricane Katrina!! I guess Obama hates Southerners and black people or just cares about his political agenda more than the people in SC where more people have died from the flooding than from last week's shooting.

If the Repubs had half a brain, they would be turning this into a commercial and tag Shillary as more of the same...

Despite ignoring the white half of his lineage and upbringing, Obreezy does have something in common with the asswipe in Oregon. Maybe it's that kindred spirit that draws him to Oregon. If Obreezy had a younger brother...
 
The problem with these shootings is as they continue and nothing changes, the actual changes that will come will be far, far worse than basic stuff like background checks for private sales. I don't know how we stop nutjobs from having access to guns though.
 
The problem with these shootings is as they continue and nothing changes, the actual changes that will come will be far, far worse than basic stuff like background checks for private sales. I don't know how we stop nutjobs from having access to guns though.

It's impossible to keep weapons out of the hands of the insane. 1) We don't always know who is insane 2) anything can be a weapon.

The best defense to these situations is an armed populace.
 
Despite ignoring the white half of his lineage and upbringing, Obreezy does have something in common with the asswipe in Oregon. Maybe it's that kindred spirit that draws him to Oregon. If Obreezy had a younger brother...

Oregon and that county has expressed that they do NOT want Obummer anywhere near them to spew political crap.
 
It's impossible to keep weapons out of the hands of the insane. 1) We don't always know who is insane 2) anything can be a weapon.

The best defense to these situations is an armed populace.

It's impossible, but measures can be put into place to deter it. The problem with more guns for more people is:

A) Not everyone will fight back, there was a carrier on the grounds during the Oregon shooting.

B) Everyone having a gun = everyone near that person having potential access. This kid had access because of this reason, Adam Lanza, etc.

So I don't know what the answer is but everyone having guns and banning all guns aren't the answers either. Too many people are stupid for everyone to have guns, that's when morons leave them around loaded and kids shoot people.
 
It's impossible, but measures can be put into place to deter it. The problem with more guns for more people is:

A) Not everyone will fight back, there was a carrier on the grounds during the Oregon shooting.

B) Everyone having a gun = everyone near that person having potential access. This kid had access because of this reason, Adam Lanza, etc.

So I don't know what the answer is but everyone having guns and banning all guns aren't the answers either. Too many people are stupid for everyone to have guns, that's when morons leave them around loaded and kids shoot people.

The answer is owning your responsibility to protect yourself, and do so. End of conversation.
 
That isn't a solution, many don't want guns and many shouldn't have them.

That is not my problem.

- - - Updated - - -

What about the cops and legislators who don't believe you have a right to self defense? Let's take a looooooong look at Massachusetts for that

Take all the looks at it you want, I got tired of complaining about MA and moved.
 
Back
Top Bottom