Deadly shooting on Oregon college campus

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Being shot is somehow worst then being knife?

It's a lot easier to shoot someone than stab them.

BillRM wrote:

Hmm as a matter of fact the largest lost of life of school children in the US was the result of a bomb not guns and once more so what?

You need to give supporting evidence for this claim. I reckon you're deliberately trying to mislead. I bet we're talking one single incident a rather long time ago, and that cumulatively more schoolchildren are killed by guns, than bombs, by a country mile.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

The American people are not going to call 'elevators' lifts and the population of Great Britain are not going to call ''lifts' elevators.

Interesting fact I heard the other day. Roald Dahl's Charlie And The Great Glass Elevator, sequel to Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, was originally called Charlie And The Great Glass Lift, but the publisher changed it because he thought Elevator sounded better and would shift more books. However it's still called Lift in the actual text.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81Za6NTRxNL._SL1500_.jpg

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Being shot is somehow worst then being knife?

If you have to ask that question in relation to a murder of 9 people and injury of another dozen or so by one perpetrator then you have shown yourself to be completely dishonest about the issue.

One man willing to rush a shooter is shot 7 times. How many times would he have been stabbed before others would have been helped taking down someone wielding a knife?

Since the largest loss of life in school bombing we have instituted many controls on explosives. You will notice that there have been no school bombings with that loss of life since that time. If we instituted controls on guns we might see the same decrease in school shootings, if we follow this to the logical conclusion.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You need to give supporting evidence for this claim. I reckon you're deliberately trying to mislead. I bet we're talking one single incident a rather long time ago, and that cumulatively more schoolchildren are killed by guns, than bombs, by a country mile.

Yes I did in fact give the link many times in the past on this website and yes it did happen in the 1920s and the bomber was the head of the local school board at that!!!

What matter is that you do not need guns to killed large numbers of people as the most people killed lately in the US was a result of taking over planes with box cutters and the second greatest lost of life was the result of a farm boy building a truck bomb out of fuel oil and fertilizers.

In the first case thousands of deaths and in the second case hundreds of deaths including children.

Then we have the Boston bombings where firework power bombs resulted in hundreds of people being wounded and many of them cripple for life and a few killed.

This in nothing of magic when it come to firearms being a tool for murder and other means had proven far superior to firearms when it come to mass murders.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

How many times would he have been stabbed before others would have been helped taking down someone wielding a knife?

??? A knife unlike a bullet can cut you open from one end to the other and put you down in a moment.

A knife is not less deadly then a firearm at close range and in some cases it can be more deadly.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

In the 1920s! That's how far you had to go. What next, most kids killed by raiding Native American war parties?

How many kids have been killed by bombs since?

Never assume, give your link. That way no one can, in this case rightly, claim you're trying to deceive.

In the 1940s lots of schoolkids were killed by bombs in the UK , doesn't mean we still have a Luftwaffe problem, or that anybody would be stupid enough to go back that far to prove a point about contemporary Britain.

Your point is absurd.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Sorry a simple google search my lazy friend with the terms "largest killing of school children in US history" will get your links.

The death toll by Wikipedia happen to be 38 children, 6 adults and 58 people injury.

Once more who need firearms to kill as there are proven far "better" means to do mass murders.

As far as it being 1927 so what as guns was roughly at the same state of the art then as now, with the Thompson submachine guns and the BARs being available for sale to the general public unlike now.

In a sad way repeat in a sad way, we are lucky most mass and would be mass murderers picked firearms to do their killings instead of the more deadly and simple to made bombs.

Oh there is no reason to think if guns was not available that the proven more deadly means of killings large number of people would not be turn to.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

People shouldn't have to run around after you because you're too lazy/incompetent to provide your own links. If you say something you need to support it, like most people do.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

The death toll by Wikipedia happen to be 38 children, 6 adults and 58 people injury.

Pales into insignificance when you consider that in 2015 alone, (the year still has the best part of three months to go remember,) firearms killed 9,997 and injured 20,344 people in America.

And here's the link, no google search necessary.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

My friend I had provide those links many times on this website over the years to the point anyone who had been reading this website for any length of time would know that my information was correct.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

firearms killed 9,997

So and how many of those killings was in self defense, how many was suicides that would had happen by other means?

An it there was no firearms in the nation how many of the deaths would had still happen by other means?

There is no reason to think that if all firearms would disappear tomorrow that the homicide rate would go down a rate that, with over 300 millions firearms in private hands, is at a very low rate compared to the average rate for the last 100 years.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I noticed they didn't include an important category in your source site - suicide.

I don't trust any site that makes such glaring errors and obvious omissions.

Jeb Bush is being savaged in the press right now for an out of context remark (stuff happens) about this murder/suicide. His point was the following:

You will never eliminate this problem with laws of any kind. As long as there are lonely people, pissed off boy/girl friends, spouses, etc it will be here.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Since the 1920s the US has created the ATF and has put in place restrictions on TNT.

Since 9/11 we have restriction on carrying box cutters on planes.

Since the Oklahoma city bombing, restrictions on the purchase of fertilizer have been put in place.

You keep bringing up tragedies that have resulted in restrictions to prevent it happening again while arguing we should do nothing.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
How many times would he have been stabbed before others would have been helped taking down someone wielding a knife?

??? A knife unlike a bullet can cut you open from one end to the other and put you down in a moment.

A knife is not less deadly then a firearm at close range and in some cases it can be more deadly.

A knife can't kill someone on the other side of a door or a piece of furniture. A knife can't slice open 4 people running away from the knife wielder. A knife requires the person be close and often that the victim is not expecting an attack. A gun can kill from yards away.

I always find it fascinating how you argue a knife is just like a gun until someone suggests that you simply carry a knife instead of a gun for self defense. Then you show us that you think they are not the same. This is only your childish argument to prevent anyone taking your gun away.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I noticed they didn't include an important category in your source site - suicide.

I don't trust any site that makes such glaring errors and obvious omissions.

It's a website providing "accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States", not one about reasons of deaths.
But agree that suicide with firearms could be included, if it (still) was a crime.
(Should self harming be listed as criminal assault as well, you think?)

But this thread is about the killing of nine innocent students in a college ....

0 Replies

You guys can argue all you want about what is the "best" way to kill a lot of people.

The fact remains, that no matter how its done, there is no way to stop someone intent on killing.
If its killing one person, or committing mass murder, you cant stop them if you dont know about it beforehand.

The argument about eliminating guns is a false one, because even in the cities here in the US with the toughest gun laws, gun violence still happens.

I am a gun owner, and outside of the military, I have never killed anyone. And my current firearms have never killed or hurt anyone.

So, if you really want to stop gun violence, like what happened in Oregon, that requires more and better mental health care,and it would require institutionalizing those people that are a threat to others.

But as I said, no matter what the weapon used is, it is not possible to stop someone intent on killing if you dont know beforehand.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

So what, take the suicides out and it's still massive. Again it's easier to kill yourself with a gun, than most other methods.

It doesn't matter what figures you use, America's gun crime rate is vastly higher than any comparable nation.

You can argue about what a supermarket is, or how to record suicides, but you're just refusing to face up to the real issue.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You keep bringing up tragedies that have resulted in restrictions to prevent it happening again while arguing we should do nothing.

Lot of means to build bombs and I mean a lot of means in fact bombs powerful enough to level large buildings.

See any chemical text in any public library for more details.

Taking PR steps such as trying to control access to fertilizers or box cutters on planes is meaningless as far as reducing the threat of mass deaths are concern.

Perhaps you would feel better if we take useless steps such as banning so call assault rifles when look is the only real different between such rifles and most other modern rifles.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

it would require institutionalizing those people that are a threat to others.

Locking everyone up is an option.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Taking PR steps such as trying to control access to fertilizers or box cutters on planes is meaningless as far as reducing the threat of mass deaths are concern.

Gosh, that must be why we have had so many fertilizer bombs blowing up buildings and planes being taken down with box cutter in the last 10 years. The "PR steps" have been ineffective.

1 Reply

Deadly shooting on Oregon college campus

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know