Father of Oregon killer blames GUNS, not son, for massacre?

[Mertex]

Now, when the morons post on this thread about how much they want to ban guns, just ask them to give their plan and provide details. That, shuts them up every time.

You mean when the moronic gun lovers right-wingers misinterpret "stricter gun laws" for "Obama is trying to take our guns away" or "liberals want to disarm the country"?

Moronic right-wingers who love guns much more than they love other human beings have a hard time comprehending that stricter gun laws does not mean "disarm America" or "ban guns". Nobody gives a shit what plan is used or what the details are, we just need laws that will prevent retards like you owning guns.

More Laws will help nothing...

You can't say that. More laws in other countries have cut down on shootings.


I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.


Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like the Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic handgun or any other kind of firearm (universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries).

• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).
• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.
• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).
• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).
• United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens.

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

That's there not here, live with it.
A nonissue

Well, your "more laws will help nothing" has just been debunked.
I also don't have to live with it. I'll do everything in my power to support stronger gun laws.....deal with it.

Using conservative logic........in the following instance, I guess if the 4 year old had been armed she would have precluded the shooter from killing her.

4-year-old dies in N.M. road-rage incident

 

[ChrisL]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

Wrong…he would have used gasoline like they do when they commit mass murder in Australia…or swords like the guy did in Sweden……….he passed every gun control law we had…and he would have passed all of the future laws, universal gun background checks, ammo background checks…….

He could get them illegally too.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

it does not follow that law abiding citizens should be denied their rights just because of one lunatic....

Yeah, right, all those kids are just collateral damage to protect every idiot in America's right to own an automatic weapon and hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds of ammunition.

i know several people with thousands of rounds of ammunition. Obviously you've never been around a gun. If you had, you would realize how quickly one can go through ammo in an hours time. People buy bulk to get it cheaper just like anything else.

 

[Rustic]

Now, when the morons post on this thread about how much they want to ban guns, just ask them to give their plan and provide details. That, shuts them up every time.

You mean when the moronic gun lovers right-wingers misinterpret "stricter gun laws" for "Obama is trying to take our guns away" or "liberals want to disarm the country"?

Moronic right-wingers who love guns much more than they love other human beings have a hard time comprehending that stricter gun laws does not mean "disarm America" or "ban guns". Nobody gives a shit what plan is used or what the details are, we just need laws that will prevent retards like you owning guns.

More Laws will help nothing...

You can't say that. More laws in other countries have cut down on shootings.


I’ve been researching gun violence—and what can be done to prevent it—in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).

The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.


Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like the Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic handgun or any other kind of firearm (universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries).

• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).
• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.
• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).
• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).
• United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens.

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

That's there not here, live with it.
A nonissue

Well, your "more laws will help nothing" has just been debunked.
I also don't have to live with it. I'll do everything in my power to support stronger gun laws.....deal with it.

Using conservative logic........in the following instance, I guess if the 4 year old had been armed she would have precluded the shooter from killing her.

4-year-old dies in N.M. road-rage incident

Pussy still hurt'n??

Sh!t happens, move on. A nonissue.

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hopefully that would never ever succeed. I don't feel comfortable at all with the government ever "revoking" one of our rights.

But you'd have no problem with locking up the mentally ill without any proof they had done anything wrong.

Just as you would have no problem taking guns away from tens of millions of people who did nothing wrong.

 

[2aguy]

Most of those are gang and criminal related, if they aren't suicides.

Wrong again. According to the FBI , only 1854 of the 16,000 homicides in 2011 were "Gang related". Not all of them were among the 11,000 homicides committed with guns.

Most gun deaths are people being killed by a gun someone brought into that household to make them "safer".

It does make you safer. I don't have a dick, so now what? Will it make my breasts larger?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. No, it doesn't make you safer.

And more on why you are wrong....

Richmond, CA Anti-Crime Program Focuses On People, Not Guns...And It's Working - The Truth About Guns

Boggan explained in a story that aired on This American Life earlier this year that his ‘aha’ moment in designing this program came when he was in a meeting with police officers who explained to him that they believed that seventeen guys were responsible for 70% of the shootings in the city of Richmond.

Devone Boggan: “17 people. And I’ll tell you, I almost flipped out of my chair. Cause I was like, 17 people? That’s nothing.”

Boggan realized that if they could reach just those 17 guys and get them to change, they could really make a dent in the problem. He asked the police for a list of those 17 names. He did his own research and added more names. To get on that list, Boggan said, you basically had to have shot someone.



*************************************
Blog: Who gets shot in Chicago?

Sooooo...Chicago had an estimated population of 2,718,782....in 2013.....and from this study....

About 70 percent of the killings occurred in what Papachristos found was a social network of only about 1,600 people — out of a population of about 80,000 in those neighborhoods.
So 1600 people out of 2,718,782 commit 70% of all gun crime........in one small area of this city.....let alone who knows about the other gang infested tiny areas......

And the irrational, anti gunners think that guns are the problem.......who are the real nuts....?

The article from the Sun Tims....

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/303579/study-shows-likelihood-being-shot-in-chicago


Only 6 percent of the people in Chicago between 2006 and 2012 were listed on arrest reports as co-offenders in crimes, the study says. But those people became the victims of 70 percent of the nonfatal shootings in the city over the same period.
-------
The study, called “Tragic, but not random: The social contagion of nonfatal gunshot injuries,” was published in the January 2015 issue of Social Science & Medicine. It shows the risk of becoming a gunshot victim in Chicago is “more concentrated than previously thought,” according to Andrew Papachristos, one of the authors.
---
The latest Yale University study was built on Papachristos’ previous social-network research into murders on the West Side. He had studied killings between 2005 and 2010 in West Garfield Park and North Lawndale. About 70 percent of the killings occurred in what Papachristos found was a social network of only about 1,600 people — out of a population of about 80,000 in those neighborhoods. Inside that social network, the risk of being killed was 30 out of 1,000. For the others in those neighborhoods, the risk of getting murdered was less than one in 1,000.

Papachristos said his team has been doing similar social network research in Boston; Cincinnati; Newark; New Haven, Conn.; East Palo Alto, Calif.; Stockton, Calif.; and other cities.

“You are also seeing a clustering of victims in small networks there,” he said. “We’re seeing a pattern.”

The Chicago Police Department is employing social network strategy in several ways.

Since 2010, Chicago Police officials, prosecutors and community leaders have organized meetings with members of opposing gang factions after murders are committed in their neighborhoods. Many of those gang members called to the meetings are on parole or probation and are required to show up. According to the police department’s guidelines for such “call-ins”: “The general message conveyed is, ‘We will help you if you will let us, but we will stop you if you make us.’ There will be a clear message that the group will be dismantled if they do not comply.”

Papachristos said he’s getting ready to release a study on the effectiveness of call-ins in Chicago. He would not provide details, but said: “We are seeing a reduction in shootings that these groups [gang factions] are involved in. It seems to be working.”

In March 2013, meanwhile, the department devised its so-called “two degrees of separation” list modeled on Papachristos’ work. The department started with people who were killed between 2010 and 2012. People who were once arrested with those victims were placed on the list, along with people who were once arrested with those associates of the victims. About 100,000 people were on the original citywide list.

 

[2aguy]

It doesn't matter what you believe, the Constitution & the Supreme Court say its a right....an individual right at that. Don't like it, go through the Amendment process. It's settled law.

Uh, no, guy. We don't have to amend the constitution.

All we need if for that Fuckhead Scalia to take a dirt nap and get a justice that can read "A Well Regulated Militia" and realize "Hey! Adam Lanza is not Well-Regulated. "

But there are other steps the government can take. the first one would be to let gun companies know that those that irresponsibly market their weapons will be disqualified from ANY government contracts. Since 40% of gun and weapons sales are to government agencies, that's a major hit to the bad actors.

Criminally prosecute gun dealers who sell to straw buyers.

Allow the victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers and dealers.

So . . . now you are trying to convince us that American citizens cannot be trusted with their rights. You are trying to convince that if I went out and bought a gun for my self defense, the chances are good that I would suddenly turn into a homicidal maniac and go on a shooting spree.

That is exactly what he believes...which explains so much about the anti gunners......they just don't understand the truth about people....

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't matter what you believe, the Constitution & the Supreme Court say its a right....an individual right at that. Don't like it, go through the Amendment process. It's settled law.

Uh, no, guy. We don't have to amend the constitution.

All we need if for that Fuckhead Scalia to take a dirt nap and get a justice that can read "A Well Regulated Militia" and realize "Hey! Adam Lanza is not Well-Regulated. "

But there are other steps the government can take. the first one would be to let gun companies know that those that irresponsibly market their weapons will be disqualified from ANY government contracts. Since 40% of gun and weapons sales are to government agencies, that's a major hit to the bad actors.

Criminally prosecute gun dealers who sell to straw buyers.

Allow the victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers and dealers.

So . . . now you are trying to convince us that American citizens cannot be trusted with their rights. You are trying to convince that if I went out and bought a gun for my self defense, the chances are good that I would suddenly turn into a homicidal maniac and go on a shooting spree.

That is exactly what he believes...which explains so much about the anti gunners......they just don't understand the truth about people....

He is a frightened little man. If a person isn't associated with criminals and criminal activity, the chances are they will never even SEE another person's gun.

 

[JoeB131]

So, you minimize the effects of gang violence, but then you turn around and talk about being 43 times more likely to kill a household member. Well, what are the statistics on THAT?

According to the CDC's 10 million dollar Obama study, more times guns are used in self defense than in crimes.

The CDC isn't allowed to study guns... and cherry picking certain big cities with a vague term like "Criminal record" really doesn't mean that much. 68 MILLION Americans have a "Criminal record".

The statistics done on the 43 time comes from the Kellerman Study. The Study the CDC did that so upset the National Rampage Association that they got Congress to cut money for gun studies.

Wouldn't want people to find out the truth about their Penis Surrogates...

 

[JoeB131]

Well, yeah guy you do have to amend the Constitution to take away the Second Amendment. That's how it works. Once it was declared an individual right, that defined it.

Uh, no. All we have to do is wait for Scalia to take a dirt nap and get someone on the court who can read.

 

[JoeB131]

So . . . now you are trying to convince us that American citizens cannot be trusted with their rights. You are trying to convince that if I went out and bought a gun for my self defense, the chances are good that I would suddenly turn into a homicidal maniac and go on a shooting spree.

Based on the crazy shit I've seen you post here, I wouldn't bet money against it. You seem like a pretty angry person.

There's no "right" to a gun. There's no "right" to anything, really. There's just what society thinks is sensible. Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942"

 

[JoeB131]

review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the victims have criminal records.
-------
The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”

68 million Ameircans have "Criminal records".

So okay. Let's go there. Let's deny anyone with a criminal record the right to own a gun. NO matter how long ago it was, no matter how petty the offense.

 

[2aguy]

review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the victims have criminal records.
-------
The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”

68 million Ameircans have "Criminal records".

So okay. Let's go there. Let's deny anyone with a criminal record the right to own a gun. NO matter how long ago it was, no matter how petty the offense.

You understand that the people in those studies....can't own or carry a gun already...right? it is already against the law......and yet they are the ones using guns to murder people...and all you care about is John Q. Citizen with his gun used to protect his family, to go hunting or to collect or compete with it......

Any of those 77% or the 99%...if you catch them in mere possession of a gun...they can be arrested and sent to prison....and yet they are the ones with the guns shooting people...

The other 320 million people aren't......

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[JoeB131]

You understand that the people in those studies....can't own or carry a gun already...right? it is already against the law......and yet they are the ones using guns to murder people...and all you care about is John Q. Citizen with his gun used to protect his family, to go hunting or to collect or compete with it......

given they are the ones who give guns to the crooks, yeah, pretty much.

You've said you can't keep guns out of the hands of crimnals without taking them away from the law abiding.

So pretty much- everyone out of the pool.

Pretty much like any other privilege that gets abused.

 

[Geaux4it]

You understand that the people in those studies....can't own or carry a gun already...right? it is already against the law......and yet they are the ones using guns to murder people...and all you care about is John Q. Citizen with his gun used to protect his family, to go hunting or to collect or compete with it......

given they are the ones who give guns to the crooks, yeah, pretty much.

You've said you can't keep guns out of the hands of crimnals without taking them away from the law abiding.

So pretty much- everyone out of the pool.

Pretty much like any other privilege that gets abused.

Gun ownership is not a privilege, its a CIVIL RIGHT!

-Geaux

 

[2aguy]

You understand that the people in those studies....can't own or carry a gun already...right? it is already against the law......and yet they are the ones using guns to murder people...and all you care about is John Q. Citizen with his gun used to protect his family, to go hunting or to collect or compete with it......

given they are the ones who give guns to the crooks, yeah, pretty much.

You've said you can't keep guns out of the hands of crimnals without taking them away from the law abiding.

So pretty much- everyone out of the pool.

Pretty much like any other privilege that gets abused.

No...as has been pointed out constantly and which you choose to ignore, since you are a lefty gun grabber, criminals ignore your laws and get their guns in 3 ways....they steal the guns, they get someone with a clean record to buy the gun for them, or they get them from other criminals who already got them through the other two methods.......


It is against the law for a felon to have a gun. When you catch the felon with a gun you can arrest them....very simple and easy way to stop gun crime.

If someone commits a crime with a gun, you can arrest them...again, very simple and doesn't need extra laws to get this done.....

 

[ChrisL]

So . . . now you are trying to convince us that American citizens cannot be trusted with their rights. You are trying to convince that if I went out and bought a gun for my self defense, the chances are good that I would suddenly turn into a homicidal maniac and go on a shooting spree.

Based on the crazy shit I've seen you post here, I wouldn't bet money against it. You seem like a pretty angry person.

There's no "right" to a gun. There's no "right" to anything, really. There's just what society thinks is sensible. Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942"

Crazy? Since when is being on the side of the people and rights crazy? Not to mention, you've gone as far as to talk about locking people up unconstitutionally! I think you should probably move to a country where the government has strict control over everything the people do and controls every aspect of their lives. Obviously, you are too fearful to be a "free" person in a free land. You need a governmental mommy to keep you safe.

 

[ChrisL]

You understand that the people in those studies....can't own or carry a gun already...right? it is already against the law......and yet they are the ones using guns to murder people...and all you care about is John Q. Citizen with his gun used to protect his family, to go hunting or to collect or compete with it......

given they are the ones who give guns to the crooks, yeah, pretty much.

You've said you can't keep guns out of the hands of crimnals without taking them away from the law abiding.

So pretty much- everyone out of the pool.

Pretty much like any other privilege that gets abused.

It is not a privilege, dum-dum. It is a natural right that we as free people have that the government only recognizes. The government in THIS country doesn't get to "give" rights, as they already exist. You just don't understand what "rights" are and you think they are "given." You don't recognize people as being sovereign beings and you want to see them under control of one government entity. That's your problem. Sorry Joe, but that is not "American."