http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2012/12/11/mass-shooting-at-clackamas-town-centerat-least-two-people-dead Comments On: Mass Shooting at Clackamas Town Center—Three People Dead by Sarah Mirk en-us Copyright 2013 Portland Mercury. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Portland Mercury readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Portland Mercury. webmaster@portlandmercury.com (Portland Mercury Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 23 May 2013 14:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by The Showstopper]]> Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:24:51 -0800 Portland Mercury
Also, posting detailed descriptions of how to unjam an AR in the comments section can typically be regrded as an indicator of a small penis.....Aaaaah, just joking fidelity, I'm sure you were one of the best cooks to ever have serve in our armed forces.
Posted by askmefirst]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:28:02 -0800 Portland Mercury
In addition, most firearms from large manufactures are sold with a gunlock included in the package; even if a gunlock is not included, they can be purchased for very cheap, or even given for FREE by some law enforcement agencies - so there is virtually no reason that a firearm owner cannot secure their weapon in such a way that it is prevented from firing.

Though, I personally don’t think this type of policy would make much of a difference in this case, nor would it effect the behavior of most gun owners. Imagine yourself in a gun owner’s shoes: you own a weapon to protect loved ones, so rationally you want that weapon to be “at-the-ready” in case you need it, you likely would not want to open a gun safe or otherwise delay your readiness of your weapon. So, even if such a policy (where as a burden of proof by the owner to demonstrate security) were to become law, I don’t think it would dissuade the actual habits of firearm owners.
Posted by fidelity_axiom]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:43:51 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Aestro]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:16:50 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by margaretg]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:14:48 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Drunk & Write]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:05:22 -0800 Portland Mercury
How would "tighter controls" prevented this situtation?

@Drunk, get over yourself.
Posted by fidelity_axiom]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:09:47 -0800 Portland Mercury
So just....just fucking save it. This is a tragedy, and we don't need your indignant justifications.
Posted by Drunk & Write]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:06:13 -0800 Portland Mercury
The increase in crimes has to do with how the UK reports gun crime - they also banned "replica" guns and air weapons in public. A breakdown of the statistics from April 2010 to March 2011 shows that of the 11,227 crimes reported, roughly a third (4203) were air weapons. They also treat any replica that has not been confirmed AS a replica to be the real thing, so an airsoft pistol is a real handgun until they confirm it's not.

The NRA and other gun proponents love to use misleading statistics to state the ineffectiveness of gun laws. They love quoting PERCENTAGES from the UK and Australia, but both already have remarkably low gun crime rates, so even minor spikes appear huge. Going from 40 murders to 60 sounds like a relatively small increase against the population size, but is still a 50% increase.

To be clear, while I would love to see all handguns magically vanish, I don't actually support a ban BECAUSE the US has such a strong history of loose gun laws. It would be significantly more difficult to round up guns here than in the UK because there are so many more. But we do need tighter controls and gun nuts need to shut up about arming every citizen or about how they would've prevented every murder if they'd been there.
Posted by Aestro]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:57:50 -0800 Portland Mercury
US firearm deaths: 9.00 per 100,000 population, of which 2.98 are homicides.
UK firearm deaths: 0.22 per 100,000 population, of which 0.03 are homicides.
Posted by Stu]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:38:08 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Doug Jones]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:25:57 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by askmefirst]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:49:08 -0800 Portland Mercury
bad guys want maximum effect and minimal resistance. badguys also don't OBEY THE LAW so making more gun laws has only proven to restrict law ABIDING citizens while arming law breakers.

ALSO, gun violence increased 90% in the last year in the UK. guess what isn't working? gun control.
Posted by Doug Jones]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:36:31 -0800 Portland Mercury
Or could one even wonder perversely that the man hadn’t necessarily come to kill an entire town but simply to take a whole community and country hostage with his self capitulation, ensuring himself finally a melodramatic exit from a life that increasingly as for many Americans has begun to lose value or meaning and led to some choosing a guns blazing glory self demise?

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2012/12/gu…
Posted by Christopher Koulouris]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:05:50 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by DamosA]]> Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:09:04 -0800 Portland Mercury
Hey @Christiana, would you really want to go to a public place where "everyone" had a gun? Especially if it was in Clackamas?
Posted by fidelity_axiom]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:55:08 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Christina O'neill]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:51:26 -0800 Portland Mercury I know lots of people that talk down to others like you do here. They also justify the need for assault rifles because they believe the government is coming after them. Thing is, they are the ones who are talking about taking up arms against the government cause thier guy didnt get elected. They also consider themselves to be the "Real Patriots." Demeaning other people to make yourself seem smarter, better, ect. only says alot about you. Use your intelligence to build up, not tear down. There is a way to do it that informs, and earns respect. Want a better America? Be a part of that.
Posted by ThinkB4Uspeak]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:31:14 -0800 Portland Mercury
Your reasoning is similar to what happens quite often to people who defend themselves from assaults. Only the witnesses just complain about the victim who defends himself; they rarely ever get physically involved themselves. Most people are just too cowardly. Also, the police prefer to see people hurt, rather than to successfully defend themselves, so they might take the word of the witness who only saw the aggressor get his comeuppance.
Posted by Rollergirl]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:19:16 -0800 Portland Mercury
But what you're describing is, in broad strokes, this specific incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

That didn't involve civilians, it involved the Holy and Infallible Police Officers. They shot 9 bystanders. But hey, at least the cops were better than those damn CHL folks, right?
Posted by fidelity_axiom]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:49:07 -0800 Portland Mercury You may very well have more training than most. But unlike the movies where hero guy is able to clearly recognize and shoot bad guy, here is more likely scenario: bad guy starts shooting, good samaritan that is close and sees whats going down pulls out gun and starts shooting at bad guy, meanwhile: 2 or 3 other people with guns who did not see actions of original shooter just see good samaritan shooting bad guy, and mistakenly think good guy is bad guy, and shoot him, on and on...
Also, you are NOT the only one with concealed carry permit, just the only one bragging....
Posted by ThinkB4Uspeak]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:41:14 -0800 Portland Mercury
Statistically, there are very few victims who were armed. Many car jackings particularly have been thwarted by armed drivers. How many of the victims today were carrying permitted concealed handguns? There most likely were quite a few shoppers at the mall who had guns, but had the good sense to stay clear. Despite all the people who legally carry handguns, there really aren't any Dirty Harrys out there and that's a shame.
Posted by Rollergirl]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:39:54 -0800 Portland Mercury
And just to make sure everyone puts this whole thing in perspective: does anyone want to guess how many people were KILLED BY YOU and your tax dollars today? I'm going to guess that the US military knocked out at least 40, and the CIA probably killed 6, and the State Department probably killed 80. Anyone else want to play this game and offer up a guess?

Congratulations, America.
Posted by fidelity_axiom]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:38:17 -0800 Portland Mercury
Seriously, I really think the way the patriarchy has ingrained into women the compulsion to artificially restrict the sex supply is a key driver of these incidents. To put it another way, sluts save lives.

So while there's nothing to be done about the Breviks, a lot of these simply crazy people might have gone in a different direction if they'd had different experiences along the way. I think you know what I mean.

That's why I say: sluts save lives. God bless the soldiers of love.
Posted by jamdox]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:22:53 -0800 Portland Mercury Posted by Stu]]> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:11:56 -0800 Portland Mercury