School shooting reported at a Community College in Oregon

[Broomstick]

I don't feel like digging, but I feel like I've seen the grabbing a knife thing go both ways in Canada.

It happens that way in the US, too - yelling "self-defense" is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

Again, and I'm probably more prone to looking for it, but I could swear this goes both ways pretty often. I doubt I'd want to risk standing in court over getting my stuff back. That alone acts as a deterrent to using force in that scenario.

Again, it's not about stuff. It's about not being maimed or dead.

[Grumman]

If I lived in the US I'd probably own a firearm for self-defence. Though I think that owning an automatic would be excessive even by American standards.

Automatic weapons are effectively banned in the US for civilians. You can own a semi-automatic, not an automatic. [/nitpick]

And that's a reasonable restriction. Between the recoil and the ammunition consumption, even the military sees fully automatic fire as not being worth it for general use.

[Broomstick]

That's why any plan for a less deadly America has to start with getting guns out of hands and off of streets. As it stands the police arm up because the criminals arm up because the people arm up. The loop continues with nobody wanting to back down for fear of their own safety/effectiveness. It's not the only step, not even the first step to take, but you need to get that level of tension down so that people can start to back away from the edge.

Even if law-abiding citizens and the police disarm the criminals will not. They don't obey laws, that's why they're criminal, get it? The only way "get rid of the guns" works is if you can disarm the bad guys FIRST. You have given no plan for doing that.

It works from the perspective of not escalating things. You get less dead or wounded homeowners, and criminals, if neither has any added incentive to carry a weapon. Your average thief doesn't want to get violent and the average homeowner isn't going to rush an intruder with a melee weapon unless things go very sideways.

Personally, I don't give a fuck about "dead or wounded" criminals who attack people.

Besides, the best home defense is a good door and some outside lights anyway.

Funny - we have that. Someone still tried to force his way in, because, you know, sometimes we do have a legitimate reason to open our door.

"a good door" and lights also doesn't do jack for me when I'm out in the world, away from home.

You really don't ever leave the basement, do you?

Besides, walking up and physically stealing from old people is vastly less effective than scamming them or letting them invite you inside.

Really? Because muggings still occur.

Muggings are quicker than scams. Scams are physically safer than mugging people. I suppose it all depends on what the end goal is and your timeframe.

Vulnerable people are going to be targets regardless. Unless you can show that being armed makes old/disabled people larger targets than usual I'm going to have to cast doubt on it having a noticable effect.

Um... how would arming the feeble make them larger targets? Is that what you actually meant to say?

I can understand the caveman desire of 'This mine, me keep. He hurt, me fight." However, it's a net loss for society for this to be the default. That trip to the hospital that gets taken after you fight the guy off and keep your wallet probably costs you/the state more than the contents of your pockets were worth. The only person worse off is you and with insurance, prudence in not carrying cash, you can likely make that far closer to a wash.

Wow, more blame the victim. It's your fault you were harmed, you carried cash! Do you tell rape victims that the way they were dressed meant they were asking for it?

I've been noticing that both yourself and Broomstick are very focused on how much worse this system can be for the individual and not stepping back to ask how this works on a larger scale. I can understand that, but it still feels like the exact attitude that keeps the idea that everybody needs to be armed alive.

Again, not everyone is armed. In fact, MOST people are not armed! 3/4 of US households do not own firearms. Clearly, quite a few people don't feel a need to be armed, even in Big Bad American.

Neither "stand your ground" nor "castle" laws allow you to get away with shooting people in the back. Not when construed correctly. A lying defense attorney might have somehow gotten a stupid or ideologically foolish judge or jury to accept that, but it is NOT law in any US state I'm aware of.

Your lack of knowledge about the US law system, combined with your tendency to lecture Americans on how bad their laws are, is unbecoming.

I'm pretty sure we've seen some cases from Florida and Texas pop up in the news more than once. You also get shit like the citizen defending their local Walmart from theft by firing wildly and the police not immediately laying charges.

Police don't have to bring charges immediately. Not having been arrested I'm not entirely clear on the details, but it's 24-72 hours (weekends being more problematic). It's pretty common for there to be a little investigation prior to bring charges because first impressions of a scene can be wrong. Or do you prefer kneejerk policing?

And those cases make the news because they are unusual.

Do you still not comprehend why defending people's lives and safety from a person who directly threatens them might be something decent, reasonable people want to be able to do?

This isn't even a 'reasonable' thing in my opinion, it's more of a 'neurotypical' thing.

On the small scale of an individual encounter, it's easy to say that the defender should be armed with the most effective thing that law allows. On the larger scale, it means that the criminal will do their best to be equally, if not better, armed than the people they intend to victimize. This means that there are more guns around to turn a fist fight into a gun fight, more guns for the random crazy of the day to shoot up a school with, more easy options for blowing your own brains out with. It's not the primary effect that we need to look at, but the knock on effect that makes every other link in the chain just that much more dangerous.

Except that, even with guns available, things don't automatically escalate.

A few years ago my landlord was the target of a robbery while he put gas in his truck. It all wound up on the gas station security tape. After trying to push the guy away was unsuccessful the landlord hit the guy over the head with a steel pipe he had laying on the passenger seat (he had just come from doing some plumbing work). End of problem. Later, the police asked why he hadn't used his gun, which was also in arm's reach in his truck. His answer? He didn't feel he needed it, and the pipe was there.

You don't have to own a gun. If you own a gun you don't have to use it. You seem to fail at understanding this.

But Chicago's law failing doesn't explain why Illinois has higher crime than Indiana despite Indiana's lax gun laws. At worst, if Chicago's gun law failed, it would result in guns being as common in Chicago as they are in Indiana, and gun crime being as common in Chicago as in Indiana.

If Chicago has MORE crime than Indiana, while Indiana is relatively safe, then there must be some other difference between the two areas. And that difference would still exist and still cause violence in Chicago (and not Indiana) if you removed all the guns by act of Q. Taking away a street thug's pistol doesn't make them stop being a street thug.

Taking away a thugs gun makes him a less effective street thug. Chicago wouldn't have tried a handgun ban if that wasn't the case. Removing guns doesn't solve crime, it just makes it fractionally less messy and when taken across a nation that adds up.

You haven't answered the question.

Why did crime go UP in Chicago after guns were banned, when right next door, where there were readily available guns, it did not? Could it be there is some other factor at work than just guns?

It's not like the county I live in is some bastion of wealthy and privilege - Gary, Indiana is third world conditions in the city proper. Yet, even with guns legal and available we don't have anywhere near the level of violence as Chicago. Why is that?

I'm not an expert on the divergence of the Canadian and American colonies from British rule, but Canada was equally powerless and didn't join the Americans in rebellion. In fact, we maintained relationships and used the Brits to defend ourselves from America several times either directly or due to threat of action.

And at one point you helped the British invade us and burn down our capital... what was that about diplomacy and being peaceful again...?

And yet many of the larger British colonies didn't have this problem or didn't feel as strongly about it if they did. The commonwealth simply wouldn't exist if this weren't the case.

Or... maybe the British started treating the colonies a bit differently?

That said - places like Ireland and India were constantly generating rebellions against the British. The US was the successful one, probably in no small part to sheer distance at the time it occured.

Not what I was getting at... I was more looking at the overreaching castle laws that some states, looking at the south on this one, have on the books.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't know what castle law actually is.

Simon, the last fight I was in where I threw a punch was back when I was in my first year of highschool. The last time I used a weapon in a fight would have been middle school. The nearest of those events would have happened over a decade ago. I wouldn't judge what I have done with what I would do.

Since then the closest I've come to a fight was when some drunk dudes started chucking full beer cans at a group of my friends and I while we were on our way back from a bar. We had a legally blind dude with us so we played protect the blind dude and jogged back to my house. The worst anybody got was me with a can of beer smashed into the back of my neck and I'm not sure if anybody from our group ever threw a punch. More fights should go that way.

On the other hand, I've twice faced people attacking me with a knife when I was unarmed. I have been grabbed around the throat and physically dragged into bushes by someone who then proceeded to attempt to remove my clothing and rape me. I have been shot at (and fortunately missed) more than once.

Maybe you're have trouble grasping that America is more violent, and "what do I do if attacked?" is not as theoretical for those of us living here. Again, it's NOT just about guns! I am well aware that there are ways to protect myself that do not involve weapons because I do those things... I am also painfully aware that sometimes that's not enough to protect me.

Beyond that, there's been nothing I haven't solved by calling the cops or sternly telling a person to fuck off and not come back. Even these cases happened years ago when I lived in a flop house. I haven't had more than stern words with anybody since that time. I'm simply not the kind of guy who looks for a fight and thankfully I'm large enough, read fat enough, that people don't look to fight me.

In other words - you're big and male. As opposed to small and female. Or male and disabled. Or just male and not-very-tough-looking. And totally clueless just what sort of advantage that gives you.

[Joun_Lord]

In other words - you're big and male. As opposed to small and female. Or male and disabled. Or just male and not-very-tough-looking. And totally clueless just what sort of advantage that gives you.

Somewhat ironically he is doing the exact same thing he accused we boorish Americans of doing, playing the "I have mine so fuck everyone else" game.

Because he is a big strong dude he doesn't have anything to fear from fights or thugs or criminal elements. He's big enough that he can intimidate or avoid a fight. He has no need for self-defense.

So fuck everyone else who isn't quite so big and strong, he's safe so fuck them. Who cares if some little old lady can't intimidate people, Jub is safe. It doesn't matter that a crippled person can't run away from a fight because Jub can. Sucks for people who live in violent areas but oh well, the worse Jub has to deal with is some drunks with the super deadly weapon of tossed lager.

Must be fucking nice.

[Channel72]

EDIT: I forgot to add that if in the USA the chances of being attacked are much greater, and the chances of the attacker being a stranger are also much greater, than that does change things. Again, IMO there is no "catch-all" firearm law that is suitable for every situation, and each country needs to adapt its own rules. If I lived in the US I'd probably own a firearm for self-defence. Though I think that owning an automatic would be excessive even by American standards.

Most gun-related murders in the US are between people who know each other, just like Canada. Again, in most inner-cities, gun violence is like 95% between rival criminals, or between criminals and police. Actual muggings of random innocent people occurs far less, since it's not a very lucrative criminal activity.

Criminals want to make money. Attacking random civilians is not a great way to make money. If you want to make money as a criminal you need to learn how to sell drugs, jack parked cars for car parts, or learn how to gain access to stolen goods that can be sold/resold. None of that involves holding up random people. It may involve breaking into private residences, however.

[Tribble]

Canadians are allowed to defend themselves with lesser or equal force. This includes lethal force if need be. However, we are currently not allowed to carry lethal weapons for protection.

Right there is a problem. If someone is coming at you there is not such thing as equal, only lesser or greater. The only place there is anything resembling equal is in the ring. I am specifically talking about fighting here for people who have no reading comprehension skills.

As a male that is 6' tall and 240 lbs, if I go after someone I already have a distinct advantage due to sheer size, at least on average. Not to mention the training I have had. Why the hell should someone be vulnerable to me just because I am physically bigger? Weapons are an equalizer as they neutralize some physical aspects.

As for the not carrying lethal weapons: you do realize that there are many who do not need a weapon to use lethal force, right?

Sorry, I wasn't accurate in how self-defence works up here. I meant "reasonable and necessary force."

A key component to self defence when lethal force is "is the person genuinely afraid for their life, and is that fear realistic?" If the answer to both questions is yes then lethal force is generally permitted even if it wasn't the only option. Basically, the "reasonable person" test applies - "what would a reasonable person do in these specific circumstances?" Of course, that depends on the circumstances themselves.

"I'm a small women, a big man attacked me, I feared for my life and I ended up having to kill him to stop him" would almost certainly be justifiable." "I'm a big man, a little old granny started whacking me with her purse and making death threats, so I snapped her neck" would probably not.

And yes, I am quite aware that most people do not need a weapon to use lethal force. What I am pointing out is that in Canada:

a) the vast majority of homicides (and in Toronto in particular) were the result of the victim being shot or stabbed. It is pretty rare for someone to beat/choke another person to death.
b) the majority of violent attacks and homicides are gang/drug related. Virtually all the shootings in Toronto are gang-related rather than random violence.
c) You are far more likely to be shot because a gang-member missed his target (usually an opposing gang-member) than because you were his intended victim.
d) In the event that you were attacked on purpose, it is far more likely that it was by someone you know (such as a family member or friend) than a complete stranger
e) In the vast-majority of homicide cases, escalation was an important factor- a verbal argument turned into a physical confrontation, which then led to someone pulling out a knife/gun and stabbing/shooting the victim.
f) as Channel72 pointed out, randomly mugging people is not an efficient way of making money, so it doesn't occur very often. Criminals here are far more likely to commit fraud, sell drugs, jack cars etc. And while some criminals break into residences, they almost always do so when the owners are out. Actual home invasions are very rare. Most criminals are pretty risk-adverse, and there's no reason for them to break into a home with people in it when they can just wait a few hours and break in once the people leave.
g) Statistically speaking, if a little old granny carries a weapon for defence in Canada, she is far more likely to end up using it on her family members and/or herself than she is having to fend off a would-be attacker.

And of course, the crime rate in Canada is about 1/3 that of the USA to begin with.

Given the circumstances, one could hope you could at least understand the Canadian perspective that it is better to try and keep firearms out of criminal's hands than it is to allow citizens to arm themselves. At the very least that would reduce the number of bystanders getting shot. And as a lot of the non gang-related homicides are due to fights that escalated, you can see why we prefer not to have our citizens walking around armed (except in rural areas of course, since there is a danger of being attacked by large predators).

I'm not saying that would work in the US (in fact I think gun control will not work down there) I'm just saying that's our particular approach given our specific circumstances, and it seems to work out pretty well up here.

[aerius]

Jub is wrong, and needs to shut up and read the Criminal Code of Canada along with the associated case law.

Let's look at Section 34 - Defence of Person.

Defence — use or threat of force

34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Marginal note:Factors

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
Marginal note:No defence

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Note all the things which are taken into account in subsection 2. So if you're a woman and a man is trying to rape you, it's perfectly legal to stab him until he stops the assault or stops moving, whichever comes first.

And Section 40, which was replaced by Section 35, used to say this:

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

Which means I could go after you with any weapon I damn well please to keep you from breaking into or entering my home.

Y'all may now return to your usual guns in America argument.

[Broomstick]

Given the circumstances, one could hope you could at least understand the Canadian perspective that it is better to try and keep firearms out of criminal's hands than it is to allow citizens to arm themselves. At the very least that would reduce the number of bystanders getting shot. And as a lot of the non gang-related homicides are due to fights that escalated, you can see why we prefer not to have our citizens walking around armed (except in rural areas of course, since there is a danger of being attacked by large predators).

I'm not saying that would work in the US (in fact I think gun control will not work down there) I'm just saying that's our particular approach given our specific circumstances, and it seems to work out pretty well up here.

I think it's telling that 3/4 of Americans don't own firearms even though they have a constitutional right to do so.

There are vast swathes of the US were crime is low, threats are few, and there is no need to arm oneself. So people don't. A lot of people are aware that owning a firearm does increase certain types of risk - the reason my family didn't have guns growing up was due to certain family members having mental illness problems. It would not have been safe for those people to have access to guns, so we did not own guns.

So no, Americans do not "worship" guns, gun ownership is a lot less common than the media would have you believe, and most people really would prefer to leave a problem situation rather than engage in fisticuffs, much less a gun battle. We do still have a problem with violence (and guns) but it's not as universal or overwhelming as the news media portrays. It's still tragic when people, particularly innocent bystanders, are shot and/or killed but the average American is still at far greater risk of injury from other sources, like car accidents or slipping in the bathroom.

[TimothyC]

I think it's telling that 3/4 of Americans don't own firearms even though they have a constitutional right to do so.

Yeah, No. That statistic is based on the number of people that respond in polls to owning a firearm, and dates to pre-2009. The number of reported first-time buyers in the last 6 years is high enough that the number is likely 2/3rds to 1/2.

By the same token, how often do you petition the government for redress of grievances? I'd imagine that that number is probably very close.

[Broomstick]

I think it's telling that 3/4 of Americans don't own firearms even though they have a constitutional right to do so.

Yeah, No. That statistic is based on the number of people that respond in polls to owning a firearm, and dates to pre-2009. The number of reported first-time buyers in the last 6 years is high enough that the number is likely 2/3rds to 1/2.

You actually need to know the number of people who get rid of their guns to make that determination. Not everyone keeps firearms for life, after all. How many people give them up?

[TimothyC]

I think it's telling that 3/4 of Americans don't own firearms even though they have a constitutional right to do so.

Yeah, No. That statistic is based on the number of people that respond in polls to owning a firearm, and dates to pre-2009. The number of reported first-time buyers in the last 6 years is high enough that the number is likely 2/3rds to 1/2.

You actually need to know the number of people who get rid of their guns to make that determination. Not everyone keeps firearms for life, after all. How many people give them up?

We don't know, because we know that gun owners lie to people conducting surveys, as as was noted before, any sort of national level registration is a non-starter. My point was that you threw out a number (only 1/4th of Americans own guns) that, while support by the only studies we have, is woefully inaccurate.

[Broomstick]

It's not just gun owners, any time you do a survey some people are going to lie. The question is whether or not that results in a statistically significant error. I don't see why would should the gun owner stats out without throwing out every single other survey done.

[Lonestar]

You actually need to know the number of people who get rid of their guns to make that determination. Not everyone keeps firearms for life, after all. How many people give them up?

I had a coworker whose wife told me proudly that they don't have guns in the house and the coworker said "what about Pop's deer gun?". She had completely forgotten about it.

Gallup says about half the households have a gun in them. Pew says it's more like a third. Neither explained how they controlled for people not answering honestly(I'm not sure how honest I would be if some stranger called asking about expensive guns in the house), people unaware of it(head of household doesn't know Jr. has one in it), or for some reason not counting family Heirlooms/completely forgetting about them.

Basically, gun ownership numbers are very, very dicey to determine. But I'd probably say more than a third of households might be a reasonable number.

[Kon_El]

It's not just gun owners, any time you do a survey some people are going to lie. The question is whether or not that results in a statistically significant error. I don't see why would should the gun owner stats out without throwing out every single other survey done.

Backdoor registration schemes are a common topic among gun owners. I can't think of any other issues where people would be as vigilant about giving out information.

[Lonestar]

I mean, imagine if some stranger called asking if you had jewelry or precious metals(or something similarly high value/easy to transport) in the house. Even beyond the registration thing that might set off a lot of flags.

[Broomstick]

It's not just gun owners, any time you do a survey some people are going to lie. The question is whether or not that results in a statistically significant error. I don't see why would should the gun owner stats out without throwing out every single other survey done.

Backdoor registration schemes are a common topic among gun owners. I can't think of any other issues where people would be as vigilant about giving out information.

I used to work for the Census. Trust me, people are paranoid whether the reason makes sense or not.

[Tanasinn]

Considering the NSA's illicit information-gathering operations and the trade in things like nudes that we know of now thanks to Snowden, don't expect people to become any more forthcoming any time this century. I can't blame people for not trusting a government that wiretaps its citizens and pisses on habeas corpus for people labelled "terrorists."

I would never report hypothetical firearms to a cold-caller, for example. For one, I don't want that information randomly published like happened in New York (?) recently, for another, I have no reason to trust that the caller is legitimate and not a burglar searching the area for places to break into.