INB4 they find a quarter ounce of weed on the shooter.
Gunman opens fire at Oregon mall, several people shot: officials
Has Tyen finally snapped with the closure of fohguild?(Reuters) - A gunman opened fire at an Oregon shopping mall outside of Portland on Tuesday and multiple people were believed to have been shot and wounded, authorities said.
The gunman remained at large at the Clackamas Town Center near the Portland suburb of Happy Valley, said Steve Campbell, spokesman for the city.
"There is an active shooter at the Clackamas Town Center," Campbell said.
The Oregonian newspaper reported on its website that two people had been killed by a man using a semiautomatic rifle who may have also been wearing body armor. The paper said the shooting occurred near the mall's food court.
A spokeswoman for the mall, which was placed on lock down, said she had no immediate information and directed calls to law enforcement.
INB4 they find a quarter ounce of weed on the shooter.
Shooter is still considered "active" but it's possible he is one of the dead. Glad we did not do our shopping there today.
Tyen was the first thing that came to mind what I saw the title
This is going to go anti-marijuana real fucking quick
Shooter has been 'neutralized' according to police.
Was there a suspicous looking donkey at the scene?
Gunman had been heard by witnesses screaming something about graphs
Ironic that stewart did yet another "is it time to talk about gun control yet Fox News?" segment last nite (the whole Costas drama).
But guys remember, now is not the time to discuss guns when emotions are running so high. It is however the perfect time to discuss pot.
Cue the retards talking about how if Portland didn't require a permit to concealed carry none of this would of ever happened
2 dead + shooter, 1 seriously injured according to Clackamas County Sheriff
Witness reports that the shooter had camo, 'body armor' and a mask and was carrying an 'ar-15'. Witnesses say he was shouting "I am the shooter."
Pretty fucked up, and not far from my house.
You know I'm actually not like oooh gun control lets go crazy because making guns illegal will fix the problem. That's just as bad as people saying "guns dont kill people, people kill people."
I'd just like substantive discussion from both sides talking about ways to fix the damn problems we have in a rational and constitutional manner. You can't do that when the NRA is saying "OBAMAZ COMIN FUR YUR GUNZ" when the dude has done NOTHING remotely of the sort. You can't even start having a normal discussion with that.
You can't even start having the conversation according to fox news. You couldn't after the aurora shooting or the football/KC thing, and those are just two recent examples. Like according to the right: 1) there is no good time to talk about gun policy; 2) Obama just wants to take away your 2nd amendment rights. Like the founders didn't contemplate the semi-automatic weapons and shit that exists today. By that logic why can't I bear nuclear arms? There HAS to be some sort of reasonableness applied.
Like most things when you can't agree on a basic factual premise you can't really begin to have a substantive discussion. But that's kind of the hallmark of the republican party these days on every issue. I don't think the left has the answers on this issue but how do you get to the right answer without substantive discussion?
Last edited by Etoille; 12-12-2012 at 01:50 AM.
Scariest party about this is the news title right now is "one and only one shooter".
Get back to shopping America, we need a good Q4.
Crazies be crazies with guns or without.
The problem is not so much guns, but the crazies themselves.
I mean, can any of you imagine being so fucked up that you walk into a mall with an AR-15 and start shooting at random? I was just discussing this with my wife and I can't imagine any scenario pushing me to that point.
If I wanted to die I would fly to South America get in a canoe and head down the Amazon river till no man's land and fucking go till I succumbed to nature's wraith. No way I would go out in a blaze of gunfire at Tj-Max.
Just another reason to shop online. I also wish these idiots would just off themselves rather then having this urge to take as many people down with them.
Opens fire in a crowded mall and only kills two people?
Must have been using a 360 controller instead of mouse and keyboard.
Fox isn't even covering it.
Hannity is covering the fact 'taped earlier' that one of their contributors was assaulted while trolling an anti-union rally in MI. Who is completely fine.
Fuck, if this had happened a few days ago...
Gun control is good, removal of guns is bad. Body armor should be made illegal for citizens to own. All assault rifles should be banned as well, keep your glocks and semi-automatics with their clips and all. Citizens have no business owning military grade assault rifles, sorry hunters but you do not need a fucking assault rifles to shoot ducks with. All of this is reasonable to discuss and I do not feel as though I am in the right in knowing what is best this is my opinion, that being said finger print resistant coatings on guns is 100% bullshit along with selling of body armor. Sorry but if you want to take advantage of the fact that you can get a gun and shoot up a place then you don't get the luxury of body armor to let you live longer and be able to kill more people.
Body armor isn't so bad to own imo, as long as the police have access to weapons strong enough to pierce it.
Body armor is nice to have during riots when police are bitching out. Protect your house or whatever from people with normal guns ;p
It's really not an argument about need though. It's more about control. An argument could be made for maybe limiting the amount/effectiveness of body armor allowed to be owned.
I think assault rifles/fully auto guns are fun as fuck/fine but I do think they should implement some storage/rental system with it. You can purchase it and all that but it can't leave the shooting range or something to that effect. Rabble rabble taking our freedoms.
Body armor should be a no go too for public sector.
It's not as simple as just saying anything that rapid fires. Anything semi-automatic can be rapid fired.
You can't own a fully auto weapon legally without loads of paperwork/background checks/money.
Assault rifle is semi-auto, auto, or burst with a detachable magazine which, obviously, fires rifle ammo.
Last edited by mkopec; 12-12-2012 at 02:30 AM.
A riot is a good enough reason to own limited forms of body armor imo.
Police forces aren't really large enough to keep peace when people go ape shit. People should be allowed to defend their houses.
Gun control isn't a real issue, it's people who can't control whatever insane urge they have to kill people. Anything automatic is illegal. Anything considered an "assault rifle" by most people, such as an AR-15, is semi-automatic and legal. Take away these "assault rifles" and there are still long rifles that are semi-automatic, and shotguns that are semi-automatic, along with every pistol. A person who is experienced handling their own firearm could kill more people with a single action revolver than some "angry at the world" teenager with an AR-15. The government can ban guns altogether to stop most people from using them for violence. They could also ban alcohol so people don't drink, drive, and kill someone in an accident. Or shit, they could outlaw cars, so not even sober people can cause accidents. Throw everyone on a bicycle. It would help with the severity of obesity in this country, and rising costs of health insurance while they're at it. Fact of the matter is no matter what, people will find a way to kill other people when they want. Random people getting knocked off will always happen no matter what regulations are put in place, or how life is enforced. I know it's easy to say this because I haven't been affected by any killings ever, but I really don't think putting anymore rules on citizens will truly change things the way people calling for gun control want them to change.
And Tyen did it.
pay the extra 50 bucks for combat grips >_>
Maybe they meant we should all have bastard swords. Or muskets? Or maybe they meant shoulder fired rockets? Thermonuclear weapons? Who knows?
It's rather vague.
Personally I think guns are fun as fuck and I also see the value of an armed population, but I also sure as hell dont want to worry about my wife and kid at the mall getting shot by some faggot with an AR-15 and voices in his head.
Also, arent semi-auto weapons with a reasonably experienced shooter just as if not more deadly than a full auto weapon? I mean unless the shooter just hopes to supress shoppers at a mall.
I sleep with a loaded '47 on my nightstand and a loaded shotgun above my bed. I call em the declaration of independence (the shotgun) and the fourth of july ('47).
Last edited by Himeo; 12-12-2012 at 02:43 AM.
The top one is fine and the bottom one is a no go imo.
I'm not sure anything should be changed from our laws as a result of this shooting.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the weapon he owned. I'm sure they will be looking into how he acquired the gun, but there usually aren't any red flags on that kind of stuff because of background checks.
If people are scared the malls could be dangerous put in metal detectors or extra security, I don't think it should be mandatory though. Safety is only ever an illusion anyways imo.
I am quite ambivlent about gun control/rights. It's a complex issue that is impossible to discuss on a national level, which I think was your point, largely because of the lobbying efforts of certain orginizations, especially those that have initials like 'NRA'.
I'd venture to guess that it will come out that the dude who did this was mentally unstable, there were people in his life who knew this, and he didn't get help for whatever reason and I think alot of tragedy could be prevented focusing on mental health issues. But of course if the government trys to have a hand in that, then socalism, right?
Culture and socioeconomic problem.
That shot gun is close range though, about 50 meters, while the rifle will go to 300+ if you aim. Why not have both?
Man I was given a picture and THAT shotgun is CLEARLY different then the one in the picture, no way you put that shotgun shell cartridge or whatever it is called on the previous picture. That gun should be made illegal.
Except the whole semi-auto vs burst/automatic fire distinction is arbitrary as fuck. Give me an M14 in a crowded mall and I guarantee you I'll be higher on the leaderboards than some chump blazing away with his MP5 or AK47 modded to fire full auto.
Fuse touched on the real issue though. The fact that the dude used a gun is completely meaningless. The problem is that he was a mentally ill dude who was going to hurt people whether he had access to a firearm or not. The fault lies on his family/friends and the health care system, not guns.
I don't have a gun and likely never will because I know that given my past history, I am one of those people that could snap on a bad day and abuse whatever weapon was at hand. I would be in favor of having much more stringent limits on ownership of firearms just because it is so hard to predict who can and cannot be trusted with the awesome power to instantly take a life. When Costas spoke about how firearms tempt us to action he really did speak the truth. It's a lot harder to work yourself up to killing someone when you are going to have to viscerally do the act with a melee weapon compared to the detached ease of a gun.
It'd be easier for me to get on the anti full-automatic weapon bandwagon if there were more shootings enabled by full automatic weapons. The guy opened up and killed 2 people with a gun. You could do that with a bolt action rifle, a shotgun etc.
Even Breivek used semi-automatic weapons. The mumbai attacks were with the kind of hardware we're talking about. But overall most of these attacks are done with semi-automatic handguns.
A few household ingredients in the proper proportions can do a world of damage. No need for a gun.
As fucked up as it is, if there's a will to do harm, there is a way.
Full auto can be hard as fuck to aim unless it's mounted. At least that's my opinion, not a super expert but I have fired mounted 50 cal and M16A1 before. Full Auto would start to pull up like crazy.
Depends on the weapon caliber, but yeah, unless you have a lot of experience controlling automatic weapon fire, if you hold the trigger down your shots are gonna go all over the fucking place. Now granted, the sound of automatic weapon fire close up is some of the most intimidating shit in the world. You might get heroes charging the lone gunman firing aimed shots with his high caliber semi-auto rifle, but I doubt anyone is gonna have the balls to charge someone blazing away with something on auto.
There are 290,000,000 guns in the United States. Any attempt to impose 'real' gun control (WTF that means - you can define it) anywhere but a socialist "utopia" like Chicago or New York would start a second civil war.
As for places like New York. Their uber strict handgun laws work so well there.
So probably better to just go buy a gun yourself and stop worrying about guns and learn to love them.
RIP to the poor bastards who got shot.
FU to the shooter.
Not to mention that blazing away at full auto runs you out of ammo in a hurry and increases the likelyhood of a weapon malfunction.
Local news keeps talking about a possible jam, which might have saved alot of lives in this situation.
It seems to me what makes a weapon most deadly is a combination of large caliber, large magazine capacity and reload time.
Tuco mentioned the Mumbai attacks, I'm sure glad that for whatever reason Al Qaieda hasn't decided just to send small groups with assault rifles and explosives into malls, schools, hospitals etc in this country.
Last edited by Fuse; 12-12-2012 at 03:25 AM.
Probably the best way to stop these shootings would be to ban people who have been diagnosed with anything from depression on up from owning a gun. That's fairly draconian, but you really can't tell what will make a person snap ahead of time so you try and cover your bases as best you can. In fact, you don't need to even ban them from owning guns, just make it so they have to be held at a range. With the shooting in KC, if the gun had been offsite, perhaps tempers would have had time to cool. Really it needs to be about increasing the time and effort needed to kill other people, and thats the legislation we should be working towards.
Last edited by Ko Dokomo; 12-12-2012 at 03:36 AM.
All right then, what about off site ownership only? Start tossing out ideas negative nancy.
No gun ownership in Japan but 5-6X a year someone does a mass poisoning or runs down a street randomly stabbing half a dozen to a dozen people. Crazy fuckers use what ever they can get there hands on. Few years back a psycho cunt here drove up on a busy sidewalk for a block and a half, killed 2 including an infant injured 15.
If they really wanna lower the number of mass shootings, STOP GIVING OUT THE ASSHOLES NAME ON EVERY TV CHANNEL WHEN HE DOES IT, the crazies wanna go down as famous.
You can either protect people from themselves and surround them with fluffy pillows and stuffed animals or you can treat them like adults.
I take the libertarian view: people are adults and get to do what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone or anything. If they want to play with guns and pot in their own house they should be able to - if they start shooting at their neighbors well then hopefully their armed neighbors will shoot back and kill them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)