Here’s What The World Thinks About The American Response To The Oregon Massacre

a reply to: Krusty the Klown

Personally I would never live in, or send my kids to school in, a country where students talk about what kind of firearm to own for self defense - as if that is somehow normal and not totally insane.

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Kryties

Lol same different you want to take weapons away that would make us dangerous to the government.

It's not even remotely the same mate. It's a complete lie perpetuated by people who want to deflect away from the actual topic which is restrictions, not outright banning.

a reply to: Kryties

Sorry, but these things can not be prevented. The world thinks we are insane? Well, I think our government is insane. I think that what it has done elsewhere it will do here.

I also believe that there are hoaxes out there in mass shooting world. Hoaxes perpetrated by various agencies sucking the UN's tit.

Right now, I really don't care how crazy the world thinks we are. We are talking about the same world that allows our government to run all willy nilly and build bases and terrorize a considerable portion of it in the name of corporate interests.

I'm not willing to budge an inch on my gun rights, and I really don't care how comfortable the rest of the world is with that. The rest of the world doesn't live here.

a reply to: TechniXcality

I respect your passion and patriotism mate I really do. But in light of making sure this whole thing doesn't blow into an all out war of words....


I think he was just trying to point out that he isn't discussing banning your guns, just a tougher way of obtaining them in the first place.


Don't want to see people get in trouble

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: Kryties

Sorry, but these things can not be prevented. The world thinks we are insane?

Why do you ignore the mountains of evidence that "these things" CAN and HAVE been prevented in other countries?

Well, I think our government is insane. I think that what it has done elsewhere it will do here.

I also believe that there are hoaxes out there in mass shooting world. Hoaxes perpetrated by various agencies sucking the UN's tit.

Oh dear. Unfortunately the topic of this thread is not about any of those conspiracies and I would ask, politely, that you stick to the topic.

Right now, I really don't care how crazy the world thinks we are. We are talking about the same world that allows our government to run all willy nilly and build bases and terrorize a considerable portion of it in the name of corporate interests.

We "allow" nothing. The US forces many of those things onto us with threats of sanctions, political instability and/or all out war if other countries do not "oblige".

I'm not willing to budge an inch on my gun rights, and I really don't care how comfortable the rest of the world is with that. The rest of the world doesn't live here.

It's a sad indictment on some people that they care not how many people die as long as they get to keep their material possessions. How very sad.

originally posted by: brace22
a reply to: TechniXcality

I respect your passion and patriotism mate I really do. But in light of making sure this whole thing doesn't blow into an all out war of words....


I think he was just trying to point out that he isn't discussing banning your guns, just a tougher way of obtaining them in the first place.


Don't want to see people get in trouble

That has been pointed out to that poster a few times now but he willfully chooses to ignore it in favour of devolving the thread into a shouting match of insults and threats.

I have been nothing but polite, and have attempted to speak my point of view respectfully and this is how I get treated. I think it is very telling.

Anyway, I do not wish to get sidetracked or off-topic by others who would try to make that so. I would ask that people in this thread keep it civil, just as I have, and do not resort to insults, threats or off-topic diversions.

originally posted by: Kryties


There is a Canadian station there, as well as Sky News which is international.

And clearly you haven't talked to many people outside America or you would realise that most of us do care. We are human beings, we care that people are dying in mass shootings that can be prevented - if we didn't then nobody would be talking about it.

My bad about the Canadian TV-station; I should have seen that. Sky News is British though.

But do the world really care about the mass shootings in America? To date there have been 314 mass shootings in America this year. How many of them have anyone outside the U.S. even heard about?

None.


We have heard about the one in Oregon simple because it is a good news story. That is it. Most places it was a 1-day-story and only the tabloids would make it a front page one. The reaction I have met has mostly been "Here we go again.. it is such a messed up society. Did you see the match last night?"

I would really like to say that I think people care, but I do not.

If your experience is different then great - I am pleased!

a reply to: brace22

Yes, but the idea of the thread is to punish America under the worlds opinion, sorry we don't fall for that we don't break under yank jokes, and the monkey jester persona applied to us, it's ridiculous it's taunting, is what it is. Why is he discussing restricting our guns? And to say it like that in that tone is just incredibly smug, that's the way I see it.

a reply to: Kryties

Who has threatened you or insulted you, please point to one.

originally posted by: DupontDeux

But do the world really care about the mass shootings in America? To date there have been 314 mass shootings in America this year. How many of them have anyone outside the U.S. even heard about?

None.

Huh? Where do you get this false information from? We are fully aware of most, if not all the recent mass shootings - it's not like our media doesn't regularly talk about it and list them off.

If we didn't care it would not make international news.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: brace22

Yes, but the idea of the thread is to punish America under the worlds opinion, sorry we don't fall for that we don't break under yank jokes, and the monkey jester persona applied to us, it's ridiculous it's taunting, is what it is. Why is he discussing restricting our guns? And to say it like that in that tone is just incredibly smug, that's the way I see it.

Smug? I am sorry you have formed that false opinion but nothing could be further from the truth. What you perceive as "smug" is actually sheer frustration by many of us "non-Americans" that you guys seemingly completely ignore facts and evidence in favour of slogans and lies.

a reply to: TechniXcality

I wouldn't say the thread is punishing America. I think that would be a wrong interpretation. More of a commentary from somebodies point of view, that within this topic of discussion, is simply agreed and dis-agreed with by many on here.

I would say that, like you, the guy believes strongly in what he is saying. I don't think he is intending to belittle or make a joke of America. He is presenting his argument, and debating it with others like yourself.

I am not defending nor attacking either party here. I am literally calling it as I see it. But don't take it personally. Yes, this a subject you believe strongly in. And more power to ya! But my advice would be to respectfully disagree. You have every right to believe in what you believe in, say what you want to say and do as you want to do. So does the OP though.

a reply to: brace22

I guess I could back that up by saying if you are a good citizen, and you wouldn't need to worry about passing them, you wouldn't mind doing the harder checks and tests.

And there it is. That same old argument. "If you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind us invading your privacy. Or "You resist, so you must be guilty of something".

So, when did you stop beating your wife?

a reply to: woodwardjnr

I don't really see your point. It's got nothing to do with medical drugs, every country has medical mental health issues. This issue has nothing to do with school shootings absolutely nothing. I wish people would stop using this red herring

I understand what you're saying. The psychiatric medication issue is often a knee-jerk response that I'm guilty of.
In fact, when these shootings occur, I usually say: "I'll bet the shooter was on anti-depressents."


Having said that, I think it's more than just a red herring.

Have a look at this .

a reply to: DAVID64

I prefer to approach to let them invade it, find nothing, and laugh at their sheer embarrassment that they really have no idea what they are doing.


And I'm not married.

a reply to: Kryties

Well no, that is precisely the point.

We in Britain for example, have a fair few persons wandering about who fall into the demographic of being mentally ill, and potentially dangerously mentally ill at that. Many folk in that situation are free to wander around, and many more remain unidentified, or get lost by a system riddled with inefficiencies, inadequacies, and outright bloody uselessness in some cases.

However, because our leaders see fit to allow that nonsense, we have gun laws which restrict, although not altogether prohibiting, the sale of armaments to civilians, how they may be stored, and so on. I personally object to not being allowed to go about with a broadsword strapped to my back, but that's the downside to the choices that have been made here.

Now in America, rather than banning guns, or taking appropriate measures to prevent dangerous felons and persons who exhibit dangerous psychological maladies from accessing either victims or weapons, what has happened is that because gun bans are unpopular, and mental healthcare provision is too expensive, they have simply failed to MAKE a choice, hence the ridiculous state of things today.

a reply to: Kryties

- being that some Americans like to deflect the debate away from the actual topic of gun RESTRICTIONS

That's just it. Our anti gun fanatics and politicians don't know the meaning of "restraint". They know almost nothing about the very thing they are trying to control. They wanted to put a ban on a piece of plastic on the ARs, that had nothing to do with the function of the gun, how many rounds it held, how fast it would fire, etc. It was a purely cosmetic add on, yet they were terrified of it. They want to ban the AR platform period, yet don't realize the gun is no more different than a hunting rifle, it just looks different. But, that's enough to scare someone who knows nothing about guns. They wanted to ban pistol grip shotguns. A piece of wood or plastic, that has NOTHING to do with how the gun functions, but once again, it's EVIL. Once these know nothings get started, they don't stop till no one can have anything more than a single shot .22

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: brace22

I guess I could back that up by saying if you are a good citizen, and you wouldn't need to worry about passing them, you wouldn't mind doing the harder checks and tests.

And there it is. That same old argument. "If you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind us invading your privacy. Or "You resist, so you must be guilty of something".

So, when did you stop beating your wife?

That is a near-perfect example of a strawmans fallacy.
Poster brace22 said that the background-checks should be far more thorough and strict.
Poster David64 said then that checking backgrounds is too close to fascism (or so it sounds to me).

Fact is that strict background testing can't provide perfect results (in Germany, professionell huntsmen are allowed to own weapons, but sometimes the guns aren't locked in good enough so that "depressed teens" were able to get them in their hands from the unlocked gunlockers of their parents and shoot people), but it hinders a lot of nuts to get them.

originally posted by: Kryties

Mass shootings are a distinctly American problem.

Between 2000 and 2014, there were 33 mass shootings in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, England, Germany, Finland, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Africa and Switzerland combined.

Over the same time period, there were 133 mass shootings in the United States, killing 487 people.

Countries like Australia have dealt with large mass shootings, tightened up their gun laws in response and virtually eliminated the problem.

The American response has been to do nothing.

Watching international news coverage of the Oregon gun massacre, it quickly becomes clear that the rest of the world is repulsed and confused by America’s inaction.

In the past, America has responded to mass shootings not by strengthening gun laws, but by weakening them. After 26 people, including 20 children, were murdered by a gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary, Congress passed an NRA-approved law weakening gun regulations in a variety of ways — including shielding gun dealers who “lose” guns from scrutiny.

From: thinkprogress.org...

Albert Einstein is quoted as once saying "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". This is an excellent example of how much of the world is viewing America at this point in time. To us it seems that America is determined to completely ignore the elephant in the room as long as they get to keep their guns without the restrictions that the rest of the world sees as absolutely necessary to keep powerful guns away from the types of people who would perpetrate atrocities like the recent Oregon shooting, along with all the others.

Americans argue that people get killed by all sorts of weapons, from cars to fires to knives to practically anything they can grasp onto that they believe will help make their point for them. None of them, however, like to acknowledge the fact that these other forms of death are from things that are NOT specifically designed to kill, and in large numbers. A nutter with a knife, for example, would have a hard time knifing 80 people in a cinema, or knifing dozens of students in a building without being quickly overpowered and arrested. On the other hand, all the shooters had to do was stand in one spot and pull a trigger with one finger and spray a hail of death at whoever they swiveled the gun at.

Yes, people will always find ways to get a gun. But in other countries around the world we quickly figured out that we could reduce the amount of people getting guns by restricting them. And it worked. For all the bleeting that comes from gun advocates in America they completely ignore the factual evidence that PROVES gun restrictions work. These same advocates are also usually the ones screaming about how gun restrictions = no guns whatsoever, which couldn't be further than the truth if they tried. This is not only false, but a clear attempt at deflection from the actual problem and the proven ways through which it can be solved.

America. I'm going to lay it out nice and simple for you. Most of the rest of the world thinks you are insane. Completely bonkers, a few fries short of a Happy Meal. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. You are NOT being "individual", you are further endangering the lives of your fellow citizens by your inaction on this issue. This is a sickness, one that has become all pervasive throughout your society and rears it's ugly head every time another mass shooting happens in America. The rest of us are no longer surprised when we hear about another shooting there, we just shake our heads in astonishment and wonder how what used to be such a great nation, a shining star of democracy and all that is good, could have fallen so far and so fast.

I fully expect a few comments calling me "Anti-American" or one of the usual slogans thrown around by ignorant people who don't like hearing the truth. I could care less. The time has come for the American people to wake the # up to themselves and realise that radical change is what is needed in order to prevent such occurrences from happening on such a frequent basis.

Here...let me point it out to you in your very own country where you say it has made such a difference. My point has always been that it does not matter what the tool is.

So, in Australia here is the homicide rate from 1993-2007, with the las count in 2007 being at 260.

Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.

Murder is the predominant charge and has been throughout the 18-year data-collection period. In 2006-07, there were 230 murder charges, 28 manslaughter charges, one infanticide charge, and one unknown. The type of charge against an offender may change once the incident proceeds through the judicial process.

In 2006-07, there were 260 homicide instances, involving 266 victims and 296 offenders.

Source

The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable

Now, from 2008-2010, well after your laws went into effect and you are stating less killings happen:

From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010, there were a total of 510 homicide incidents—253 in 2008–09 and 257 in 2009–10.
These incidents involved 541 victims and 611 offenders—262 victims and 293 offenders in 2008–09 and 279 victims and 318 offenders in 2009–10

And here is the REALLY interesting part:

Knives continue to be the most commonly used weapon, with 37 percent of all homicide incidents in 2008–09 involving knives/sharp instruments. This increased to 41 percent in 2009–10.
During the period 2008–09 to 2009–10, approximately one in 10 (n=65; 13%) homicide incidents involved the use of a firearm; of these, only 14 percent involved a handgun. The majority of all firearms used in homicide incidents were reported by the police as unregistered and/or unlicensed. Overall, firearm involvement and in particular the involvement of handguns in homicide incidents, remains at an historical low.

Source

So....knives are on the rise, the numbers have not dwindled, but overall firearm involvement is at a historical low....congrats on taking away the tool and not lowering the number of homicides committed...at least the guns are not there though.

So...care to comment on how guns were causing more killings than anything else...it has actually gone UP since 2007.

That is data directly from your government as linked in the sources.