Oregon community college shooting, multiple casualties

Status
Not open for further replies.
jonnyghost said:
seb said:
jonnyghost said:
However, a hand gun, shotgun, rifle, assault weapon(semi automatic or automatic weapons) , they all are used or can be used to kill and the weapon of choice for most people in the US who commit murder is a firearm and over have of the killers have used assault weapons since 1982, More than half of the killers we studied in our investigation of 62 mass shootings over the last three decades possessed weapons that would be banned by Feinstein's bill, including various semi-automatic rifles, guns with military features, and handguns using magazines with more than 10 rounds. The damage these weapons can cause has been on grim display since last summer, from Aurora to Milwaukee to Minneapolis to Newtown, where attacks carried out with them left a total of 118 people injured and dead.clearly very few chose a knife to do the killing.

You mentioned assault weapons. I pointed out that all rifles combine kill less people than knives. My argument stands.

You said you where not talking about a ban? Now you're bring up the Feinstein bill?

What "military features" make an AR more deadly than any other semi auto?

"assault weapon(semi automatic or automatic weapons)" Non of these shootings used an automatic weapon.

Here is how long it takes to change a magazine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65_b3ZM0ujU
10 round mags don't slow you down.

I don't link to any NRA propaganda so why are you sending me to http://www.motherjones.com? Give me facts, like FBI statistics. I'm not going to comment on their bad journalism.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about taking all your guns away, just assault weapons, they have no place outside of a war zone. Now if you and your gun loving brethren can come up with a way to keep them out of the hands of the nut cases and only in the hands of the "GOOD GUYS" then I'm listening.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jonnyghost said:
And there is a HUGE difference between giving everyone a gun and giving good people guns.
Click to expand...

And how do you keep the guns out of the bad guys hands and only in the hands of good guys?
 
jonnyghost said:
Well I apologize. What I should have asked and what I meant was why, if you aren't singling out people with ASD are you bringing up statistics from that study?
Click to expand...


Because even though you don't have any faith in it's findings, I do and having known and still know several people with Aspergers and others with Autism I could see some of them snapping somewhere down the line if given the chance. One with Aspergers actually scares me with his talk of killing people, but at least his family has him in counseling and they don't have any guns in the house.
 
seb said:
Because even though you don't have any faith in it's findings, I do and having known and still know several people with Aspergers and others with Autism I could see some of them snapping somewhere down the line if given the chance. One with Aspergers actually scares me with his talk of killing people, but at least his family has him in counseling and they don't have any guns in the house.
Click to expand...

The actions of the couple people you know mean nothing when judging people with ASD overall.
 
seb said:
And how do you keep the guns out of the bad guys hands and only in the hands of good guys?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. Nothing you have suggested keeps guns out of the hands of bad guys only the good ones. We've already had an "assault weapons" ban and it didn't do squat.
 
Seb should this gun be ban?

RZ2A8Ozl.jpg


And this one allowed?
Ruger-Mini-14.jpg
 
CrazyPaul said:
A pen I see is not designed as a weapon but a gun I see is designed as a weapon. Simple as that.
Are you aware of the news about the customers at a restaurant calling cops on one customer with a visible gun and he was kicked out of the restaurant? My point is that they wouldn't call cops on a customer with a pen in his shirt pocket. Why? If you answer that they saw his gun as a weapon, not his pen, you are correct.
Click to expand...

So you are arguing what makes an object a weapon is its design, and NOT human intent to use an object as a weapon
Is this your argument?
 
Jezie said:
I agree with you, however you did state :


You state it again in this post
When you blanket it as "anything" you skip the very definition of the word "weapon" which provides the parameters for this discussion.

"A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage: nuclear weapons"

I must point out that your view is based in philosophy not fact. While this is true on many things... Bombs, guns, and other tools of war are weapons by design and do not depend on human intent any longer ... For their very development was for the intended purpose of causing bodily harm. However, outside of things that were built for bodily harm, yes it is human intent and application that will determine if it is a weapon. Yet, I do agree that a gun is just a lump of metal and plastic parts until a person decides to pick it up and harm someone with it. But a shoelace is only a weapon in the hands of someone who has a basic understanding of how to use it as a weapon... Sadly as we learn often even an toddler can kill with a gun....

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/weapon
Click to expand...



Actually my view is based on fact. The main western corpus of law, in all its flavours, be it common law or constitutional roman ect.

If you or any one truly hold any doubt to my statements. That which makes a weapon a weapon is human intent and not design. Go pick up a hammer (an easy example, we can use for this exercise any object. But a hammer will do just as fine as any. As a hammer was not nor is design as a weapon, thus according to some is not one nor can never be one),

Go physically assault another with it.

And see which charges are laid on you.

By all means....
Dont take my signs for it.
Happy hammering.....

Also my statements are based on experience. I have allot of experience in this feild. Be that chocking people out with their own cloths, (are cloths a weapon, guess not since they werent designed as weapons....wakey wakey.....tsk tsk..) .or being inside. Any screw, any cop, any con, knows by FACT any object can be a weapon...any....

Its not a philisophical statement...though it can cross with such.
 
hoichi said:
Actually my view is based on fact. The main western corpus of law, in all its flavours, be it common law or constitutional roman ect.

If you or any one truly hold any doubt to my statements. That which makes a weapon a weapon is human intent and not design. Go pick up a hammer (a hammer was not nor is design as a weapon, thus according to some is not one nor can never be one), go physically assault another with it.
And see which charges are laid on you.
By all means....
Dont take my signs for it.
Happy hammering.....
Click to expand...

well so you call hammer is a weapon. You choose to tell your children how to use hammer to hit somebody instead of teach them how use tool? so you don't understand Hammer is designed for tool. All you think of weapons.
 
hoichi said:
Actually my view is based on fact. The main western corpus of law, in all its flavours, be it common law or constitutional roman ect.

If you or any one truly hold any doubt to my statements. That which makes a weapon a weapon is human intent and not design. Go pick up a hammer (an easy example, we can use for this exercise any object. But a hammer will do just as fine as any. As a hammer was not nor is design as a weapon, thus according to some is not one nor can never be one),

Go physically assault another with it.

And see which charges are laid on you.

By all means....
Dont take my signs for it.
Happy hammering.....
Click to expand...

Never disagreed that intentions have no bounds... All I am saying is that a gun is a weapon by design thus it's intent does not matter... Although some are shown to have design for sports so who knows where that one lays... And as for the legal definition... Maybe it is different between our nation's but the US also holds the by design or intent...
 
ricas27 said:
well so you call hammer is a weapon. You choose to tell your children how to use hammer to hit somebody instead of teach them how use tool? so you don't understand Hammer is designed for tool. All you think of weapons.
Click to expand...

It is human intent and will to use an object as a weapon that makes an object a weapon.

Doubt it?
Hapy hammering......

See what charges your hit with.....

Tip
Aim for the temple the thinist part of the skull, then cranium, the head will come apart like a hit melon......"-)

But....but.....but....
How can that be?

A hammer isnt a weapon. It wasnt designed as a weapon...its not a weapon....
Mmmmmm....
Fascinating

Are chop sticks weapons....
I can make you dance.woth those damn things.....
Tsk tsk...
How?
 
Jezie said:
Never disagreed that intentions have no bounds... All I am saying is that a gun is a weapon by design thus it's intent does not matter... Although some are shown to have design for sports so who knows where that one lays... And as for the legal definition... Maybe it is different between our nation's but the US also holds the by design or intent...
Click to expand...

My statments stand for the u.s. too.

Doubt me
Pick that hammer up...and hapy hunting.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top