It just gave me the creeps.
Hello Guest,Welcome to Apnea Board !
Roseburg, Oregon Shooting
10-26-2015, 01:16 PM
The shooting that occurred at the community college near Roseburg, Oregon happened less than a block away from the house that my parents built and lived in up until a few years back when we had to move them to Denver. It really makes me wonder. That area is such a peaceful and idyllic appearing area that it came as a real shock to me when I heard about the shootings. I only have one relative still living in that area. I have a cousin who lives on the other side of the North Umpqua river from the campus.
It just gave me the creeps.
10-26-2015, 01:24 PM
I bet. unsurprisingly, the shooter was not from " 'round heeyah" but southern ca where things are not quite so idyllic growing up. not to say rural or semi-rural folk are never violent, but my impression is that they are less often so.
هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه
Tongue Suck Technique for prevention of mouth breathing:
هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه هههههه
10-26-2015, 04:52 PM
Gun Free Zone. Killing fields for armed killers, with nobody else allowed to be armed to stop em.
Heart goes out to the victims.
But the powers that be that set up these death traps invite such things to happen thru their ignorance.
10-26-2015, 06:08 PM
If "gun free zones" are good enough for our kids, they ought to be good enough for our President as well.
*I* am not a DOCTOR or any type of Health Care Professional. My thoughts/suggestions/ideas are strictly only my opinions.
"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your Soul, the other for your Freedom."
10-26-2015, 09:30 PM
It's very tempting to try to legislate something that you think would have prevented the latest tragedy hyped by the media.
Making it work is another thing. Even tougher is being sure that you don't prevent one tragedy and causing two elsewhere.
There's never much of an outcry about gun laws when some unarmed homeowner who didn't get a gun because of the hassle is killed in his own home by an unarmed or armed intruder. There's a dozen of those for every school shooting.
10-26-2015, 10:46 PM
(10-26-2015, 09:30 PM)archangle Wrote: It's very tempting to try to legislate something that you think would have prevented the latest tragedy hyped by the media.
In reference to your last sentence, we live about 15 miles from a city of approximately 150,000. Just two weeks ago an intruder broke into an elderly lady's home, pistol whipped her because she didn't have enough money for him and the victim later passed away because of her injuries. She was 85 years old and was known by everyone in her neighborhood to be a "Grandma" to all the neighborhood kids. So sad.
10-27-2015, 06:50 AM
I'm glad to see a civilized discussion on what could be otherwise.
One thing to point out; just having a firearm is not enough. Firearm owners have to know how to properly use their tool of choice. At least take a course. Have someone take you to the range and fire off 100 rounds. There are many stories of people having their own used against them because they couldn't load while shaking from adrenaline, or froze up when it came time to point and click. Or worse, shot the spouse coming back from the bathroom. (Always feel the other side of the bed to see if it is empty).
I also recommend an OC pepper spray. Works on dogs, coyotes, bob cats, bears, politicians, road-ragers, drunk and drugged up prison candidates. It would buy you time to get away or at least load the jhp if you didn't fill the room with it.
10-27-2015, 03:00 PM
If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. The US had 23 times the gun deaths in 2010 compared to the rest of them. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws? I should hope it is the latter.
People who argue against gun control like to cite Switzerland as being liberal but with few gun deaths, but it certainly isn't because everyone is carrying, so it is a false argument. yes, all men have a service rifle at home, possibly a service revolver. No, they don't have bullets - those are kept in the kaserne, and one thing is certain - we don't have many, or any, doing concealed carry - you have to be in law enforcement or security services to get a permit for that.
When I did a part of of my emergency medicine and surgical internship in the US, it was like a war zone - the number of stabbings and shooting was unbelievable, and that was even back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, and in umpety-ump years of practice here, I have encountered six gunshot wounds, and twelve stabbings, all from drug or alcohol related crimes.
I think it is a myth that if everyone had a firearm and could respond to a shooting, the shootings would not happen, or the shooters would be brought down before they could go on a spree. I think that most people would would get themselves killed or accidentally shoot someone else and not be effective in deterrence. It would harbour a society of fear, and most likely would ramp up the already extremely high level of accidental gun woundings or shootings. People don't walk around expecting trouble, so when it happens, they get surprised. Even trained cops get mugged off duty.
I am uncertain how many of my fellow members here have served in the military or dealt with guns on a regular basis or had to shoot someone (or save someone who had been shot) but I can assure you, as someone who covers all those bases, I can see no good reason to allow public access to guns, it saves no one and more likely gets the owner killed or they end up killing someone. Americans aren't crazier than we are (so I have observed many times), aren't more homicidal than we are (I hope), aren't more immature than we are (except for certain politicians, a particular financier, and news commentators), so why the high level of armed violence? Part of it is social inequality, part of it is racial inequality, to be sure, and a lot of it is the drug trade, but we have all that in the above group of countries, so the answer has to be the ridiculously easy access to weapons for no good purpose.
A joint study published in March 2013 by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence, showed ‘states with the most [gun control] laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws’. That may not be true today, given the pandemic of mass killings over the last two or three years. But I do not believe that had the victims been armed the outcome would have been much different. Instead, the question has to be how or why were the perpetrators so easily armed.
The 2nd amendment in the US is pretty clear to me that the framers were referring to maintaining a well armed militia, not just Joe Blow being allowed to carry an AK47 or some other such nonsense because it is his "right". And I believe that this is part of the problem, as the arcane formulation of the language immediately renders any attempt to examine, debate or remedy the current climate murky - there is simply no clear guidance from the framers of the 2nd amendment. I am sure that others here will disagree, vehemently even, but I must express my feelings on this. No good calling me a peace-nick or whatever, unless you also want to come and examine the rifles and other weapons, all battle ready, in my closet as the law requires. And I remind you that I am soon to go into territories where the sort of violence currently happening in the US is a daily fact, too, and not because of crime, but because of racial and political hatred.
As a white coat type, my take on this in the US is that it is a public health issue now, like smoking, and no longer a rights issue. So long as my crowd are trying to patch up the holes, it will remain a health issue, and it should be handed over to the Surgeon General to advise on it. Just my two centimes worth, so don't shoot me for it.
(10-27-2015, 03:00 PM)DocWils Wrote: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. The US had 23 times the gun deaths in 2010 compared to the rest of them. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws? I should hope it is the latter.
The problem is that you're cherry picking your data.
Do the same analysis in the Western Hemisphere and the results will be dramatically different.
As to the reason why? Hard to tell. There's very little correlation with gun control laws and violent deaths. Many of the countries with strict gun control have high violence rates, too. Even if there were a correlation, which direction does the causality run? Do strict gun laws cause less violence, or does a high crime rate make citizens decide they need guns to protect themselves? If you lived in a place where you had unarmed friends and neighbors who have been attacked and killed, and the police aren't handling it, wouldn't you be a little more likely to want a gun of your own to protect you in your home?
(10-27-2015, 03:00 PM)DocWils Wrote: A joint study published in March 2013 by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence, showed ‘states with the most [gun control] laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws’. That may not be true today, given the pandemic of mass killings over the last two or three years. But I do not believe that had the victims been armed the outcome would have been much different. Instead, the question has to be how or why were the perpetrators so easily armed.
You lost this argument in the US when you mentioned anything with "Brady" in the name. We don't trust anything involved with the Brady hysteria.
There's no pandemic of mass killings. It's a tragedy when your loved one gets killed, whether it's a "mass" killing, an isolated incident of gun violence, a case of non-gun violence, or a drunk driver. We need to stop worshiping the school shooters in the media. It leads to more violence.
We need to handle the real, statistically significant causes of death. A school shooting or other hyped "mass killing" gets lots of press, but it's not even a blip on the chart of the murder rate. Each death is a tragedy. Let's not glorify certain murderers because it's good for the TV ratings. For every one who has been terrified or killed in a "mass" shooting, there are a hundred who've been equally terrified or even killed by a different violent situation, perhaps not even involving guns.
(10-27-2015, 03:00 PM)DocWils Wrote: As a white coat type, my take on this in the US is that it is a public health issue now, like smoking, and no longer a rights issue. So long as my crowd are trying to patch up the holes, it will remain a health issue, and it should be handed over to the Surgeon General to advise on it. Just my two centimes worth, so don't shoot me for it.
We don't trust our government that much. Have you heard about the NSA, Edward Snowden, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, climate change denial, etc.?
The Surgeon General is a political appointee. They've actually done a pretty good job in the US, but they're subject to political pressure. The Tea Party in Congress would rip him to shreds. They'd destroy the US Department of Health and Human Services. If the Democrats are in control, they'd mandate a forgone conclusion that gun control is a good thing.
Even if gun control is a good thing, the US Surgeon General is not the one to make the decision. If the Surgeon General did produce a report concluding that gun control is a good thing, it would probably do more harm than good for the cause of gun control.
Remember, we're the country that let popular opinion make us back out of conversion to the metric system. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. (And the stupid is on both the pro and anti-gun advocates.)
The real problem I see with the Surgeon General making such a study is that they would cherry pick data and assumptions. For instance, how do you account for the deterrent value of an armed population of citizens? How many criminals would do violent home breakins, but refrain because of the risk of being confronted by an armed homeowner?
10-27-2015, 05:05 PM
Drugs like opium, ice, etc ... are much bigger problem than guns
I think safer to have a nice cup of tea, you cannot hurt yourself with a tea bag
|Possibly Related Threads...|
|Way too hot on the beautiful Oregon coast..||retired_guy||16||2,217||
09-08-2014, 07:13 PM
Last Post: retired_guy