Slashdot Mirror
10 Confirmed Dead In Shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College
CNN and other sources report that an attacker, now in custody, shot and killed a
reported ten people, and wounded another 20, at Oregon's Umpqua Community College, about three hours south of Portland, and described by CNN as "technically a gun-free zone." Students are being evacuated to a nearby fairgrounds, and local authorities advise anyone to avoid the area of the college. Wikipedia editors are also quickly compiling information about the attack. More news on the attack is still breaking; expect updates here.
You left out WHITE... Most of these idiots are white.
A few? Dude have you looked at http://www.dayssincethelastmassshooting.com/history/
We haven't made it out of the double digits since 2014!
It's why the Onion's Satire just reads like more sad news these days.
Year old, but continually appropriate:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol is enough for a kid to be kicked out.
That cinema, where "a joker" killed 12 people — that movie theater was not closest to his house, but it was the only one within a 20-minute drive, that declared itself "gun-free".
In denial much?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What about those taking places on military bases? Those are technically gun-filled zones.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Right, in the world. Amongst developed nations, it's certainly number 1 in that sense, by miles and miles.
Funny how the Australian gun crackdown has a big correlation to the complete lack of massacres since 1996.
What about those taking places on military bases? Those are technically gun-filled zones.
Wrong. They are not allowed to carry on base. Weapons are locked away in storage. Soldiers on base are defenseless against these types of attacks, which is why they are so effective.
What about those taking places on military bases? Those are technically gun-filled zones.
Actually, they're not. Firearms are locked in the arms room unless training is taking place. All ammo is locked in a different area. Every round is accounted for.
You are also not allowed to have firearms on post for day to day things (personal), those have to be registered with post security.
13F20L7 Operation Iraqi Freedom 07-08 Balad/Taji
The answer is less guns, not more.
I'm sorry, but I can't let such words go unchallenged.
The answer is fewer guns ;)
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The well regulated militia part was about private citizens being able to form their own armed groups for mutual defense.
It had nothing to do with the police, national guard, or anything government run.
Even the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
I think the firing range comment was about:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/...
Which was most likely a result of PTSD, as they were at the range trying to help the vet get through his PTSD issues.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
1) Before you go around accusing the NRA of being terrorist, ask yourself, which one of them have actually committed a terrorist act?
Timothy McVeigh. Just answering your question.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This is flat out wrong. High school kids should not be able to access automatic firearms for which you should have specialized training to use in the first place.
Your comment implies a lack of understanding about guns in general.
I have found, not always, but often, that anti-gunners don't actually know that much about guns.
Your "automatic firearms" comment is a bit of an issue... Do you mean "select-fire" weapons? Semi-automatic weapons? What?
And what "specialized training" is required to use an AR-15 rifle vs. a hunting rifle vs. a handgun vs a shotgun?
If I knew I was going to be shot, I'd much rather be shot by an AR-15 than by most hunting rifles. The single round from a hunting rifle is likely to drop me dead to the floor, while I could survive most 5.56mm rounds that don't hit a vital organ.
BTW, I owned a gun in high school, a .22 rifle that I owned since I was 8 years old when I was given it for my birthday. I've been shooting since then, having learned first at summer camp then at gun ranges later on.
My 9 year old son has his own rifle already and my daughter has one waiting for them. There is nothing scary or dangerous about that, because they respect the weapons and have seen what they do and have a respect for life that too many people lack these days.
And yes, both rifles are locked up, they can't get them out when they want to of course, but they are theirs to use at the range and to take with them when they leave home.
here's the guy announcing the shooting...
(sorry for hijacking the thread)
The point of gun-free zones is not to deter bad guys. It is to help prevent good guys bringing guns to places where they aren't needed, getting involved in an argument or whatever, and escalating things to the point where someone is shot. Another reason is to prevent unintentional shootings, either from a malfunction or a dumb accident.
You can argue that it is still not a good idea, but at least be honest enough to acknowledge the real reasons behind the policy.
https://imgur.com/gallery/CLOx...
This covers most of what you'd want to know and look at regarding firearms statistics, both in the US and worldwide. Homicide vs gun ownership, gun assaults vs gun ownership, violent crime vs gun ownership; it compares the states within the US, all the OECD countries, and all countries. It shows what weapon is killing the most people and which people are the ones being killed. It even looks at mass shootings, including per capita rates, and overall number of deaths from mass shootings as a percentage of overall homicides.
Citations are included in most of everything, and numbers are usually taken from government bodies such as the FBI or CDC.
> the homicide rate in Australia is almost exactly the same before and after the ban. This has been well debunked. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/... According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
Yeah, that debunking has been well-debunked too... violent crime has been decreasing in all first world countries, and using other countries as a control shows that Australia's violent crime is higher than it should be.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
If that means that a few law-abiding citizens can't get access to an M-16 for entertainment purposes, than so be it.
Mission accomplished then. No law-abiding citizen may have access to an M-16 for entertainment purposes. Now there are certain organizations that may have access to an M-16 for business purposes, but no citizen may own one. Does that mean your gun control agenda has been completed, or do you want to do more?