Shooting at Clackamas Town Center Macys

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Rastapopoulos said:
All the other countries, where gun fatalities are a miniscule fraction of here?
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. There are many countries around the world, most of them much smaller, where gun fatalities eclipse the relatively few we have in America.
 
Run BJM said:
Theoretically, if you ban these guns or ban the modifications or magazines or what have you that make this kind of thing easy, then the number of these will shrink as police start getting them from arrested gang members and whoever else would be using them. Also theoretically, wouldn't these shit stain teenage/early 20s guys be priced out of getting one since the gangsters and gun aficionados would be driving the price up for them? Maybe as years turn into decades we'd look back and remember a time when every 6 months to a year some fuck head would start shooting random people in public with high powered assault weapons.

Obviously a big part of the reason these things happen is culture and psychology/sociology type of stuff. But what is the harm in banning assault weapons? Hunters can still use hunting weapons, people can still have their home defense weapons. No one needs an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

In my mind, the entire point of the second amendment (as MARIS61 has stated) is to ensure that the populace is sufficiently armed to protect itself against the threat of tyrannical government. If the populace is relegated to pea shooters and air rifles, it seems that it would defeat that primary purpose.

On the other hand, I might suggest that the "government"--and the country itself--are too sprawling and fractious to facilitate a legitimate tyranny, so perhaps it's possible that the 2nd has outlived it's usefulness.

I would submit, however, that if weakening/recision of the 2nd leads/contributes to a tyrannical government, that would do more damage to the country and its people than 100 years of assault rifle ownership would.
 
I'm not sure that the general population should have access to, or a legal right to own, the same types of guns that the military has.
 
julius said:
I'm not sure that the general population should have access to, or a legal right to own, the same types of guns that the military has.
Click to expand...

That's a valid point. I was wondering as I typed my prior post what those who advocate exclusively in favor of gun rights (eg, Lars Larson) believe is the necessary availability level for private armaments. Does anyone believe that people should own tanks or fighter jets? Where is the line, and who draws it?
 
julius said:
I'm not sure that the general population should have access to, or a legal right to own, the same types of guns that the military has.
Click to expand...

The military uses bolt action rifles... a Remington 700.... you can go out and buy it. The military uses M14 rifles, which look more like a hunting rifle than an assault rifle. What would you categorize as a "military type gun"? Something that resembles the design of a military weapon?

An AR15 is not the same type of gun that the military has. It resembles the same design as an M4 assault rifle, and it can use a 30 round magazine, but can it go full auto? No. Can it go three-round burst? No. It's like comparing an actual race car to the street model. It's not even close to the same thing.
 
Just to jump in late. As far as I am concerned, the public should have access to nothing faster than a bolt action rifle and hold nothing more than 12 bullets in a clip. Nothing semi-automatic.
 
westnob said:
Just to jump in late. As far as I am concerned, the public should have access to nothing faster than a bolt action rifle and hold nothing more than 12 bullets in a clip. Nothing semi-automatic.
Click to expand...

So you would get rid of:

Revolvers
Semi-auto handguns
Shotguns of all kinds
Semi-auto hunting rifles that hold no more than five rounds

And what makes you think that someone can't rack a bolt and shoot more accurately than some bozo that just squeezes the trigger as fast as he can with an AR? Listen, I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just trying to point out that the bias against certain types of guns is misplaced. A gun is a gun, unless you want to go to black powder rifles that would be impossible to shoot more than once without going through a long reloading process.

A shotgun doesn't necessarily have to be semi-auto, but could do just as much (if not more) damage as an AR 15.

Also, I'd like to point out that the argument about needing an armed populace to guard against a tyrannical government, is fairly ludicrous at this point. I just don't see how any militia could fight our military. We have drones, we have guided missiles, we have satellites. A handful of people could wage a significant war against the populace of this country.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
In my mind, the entire point of the second amendment (as MARIS61 has stated) is to ensure that the populace is sufficiently armed to protect itself against the threat of tyrannical government. If the populace is relegated to pea shooters and air rifles, it seems that it would defeat that primary purpose.

On the other hand, I might suggest that the "government"--and the country itself--are too sprawling and fractious to facilitate a legitimate tyranny, so perhaps it's possible that the 2nd has outlived it's usefulness.

I would submit, however, that if weakening/recision of the 2nd leads/contributes to a tyrannical government, that would do more damage to the country and its people than 100 years of assault rifle ownership would.
Click to expand...

You could also argue that there's no way, even with fully automatic weapons, that a fully armed citizenry could put up even a cursory fight against an army that can bring jets, tanks, and nuclear bombs to bear. In that respect, the 2nd Amendment has failed miserably, and since I'm not really on the side of giving your average citizen a nuclear bomb, perhaps its time is over, for the safety of the citizens in their squabbles with one another.
 
Did our forefathers, when writing the constitution, envision that the amendment would be used to allow 18+ year olds to walk around in public with semi auto weapons like the kind used in these spree type killings?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples' militia for its national defence. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.
Click to expand...

And then there's this

Police statistics for the year 2006[12] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[13]
Click to expand...

So why is it that Switzerland issues every male citizen between the ages of 20 and 30 a military grade weapon (fully automatic and semi-automatic) and yet they have less gun crime than assaults committed with blades?
 
Natebishop3 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland



And then there's this



So why is it that Switzerland issues every male citizen between the ages of 20 and 30 a military grade weapon (fully automatic and semi-automatic) and yet they have less gun crime than assaults committed with blades?
Click to expand...

Because everyone has had military training and doesn't think they're fucking Chuck Norris?

Switzerland's murder rate as a whole is 1/6 ours, too.
 
Shooter: Jacob Tyler Roberts (born: 1990) of Portland

One of the victims was from North East Portland, the other West Linn.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
Because everyone has had military training and doesn't think they're fucking Chuck Norris?

Switzerland's murder rate as a whole is 1/6 ours, too.
Click to expand...

But that's not the contention. There have been posts in this thread saying that the public should have not have access to military grade weapons. Switzerland issues fully automatic weapons to their populace to keep in their homes, and yet they have fewer gun crimes than those committed with a knife or with fists. These are not just replicas of military weapons, but actual military grade weapons that could inflict unbelievable amounts of damage. I just think it's interesting.
 
The news is now saying that he got the gun unjammed and then he killed himself.
 
Last edited:
Natebishop3 said:
But that's not the contention. There have been posts in this thread saying that the public should have not have access to military grade weapons. Switzerland issues fully automatic weapons to their populace to keep in their homes, and yet they have fewer gun crimes than those committed with a knife or with fists. These are not just replicas of military weapons, but actual military grade weapons that could inflict unbelievable amounts of damage. I just think it's interesting.
Click to expand...

Did I stutter? MILITARY. TRAINING.
 
4chan and the shooter

KATU apparently has information that the shooter talked about this on 4chan.

I've been there once and really don't want to browse that board.
 
Re: 4chan and the shooter

That place is crazy... I wouldn't be surprised if they encouraged him too. A bunch of sociopaths in that place.
 
Re: 4chan and the shooter

what is 4chan?
 
BlazerCaravan said:
You could also argue that there's no way, even with fully automatic weapons, that a fully armed citizenry could put up even a cursory fight against an army that can bring jets, tanks, and nuclear bombs to bear.
Click to expand...

You could argue that if you wanted to display your naivete' about the realities of war and insurgency, but history has proven you wrong numerous times.
 
Re: 4chan and the shooter

WEST LINN, OR (KPTV) -
One of two people shot and killed at the Clackamas Town Center mall has been identified as Steve Forsyth, of West Linn, FOX 12 has learned through sources.

Two people were killed when a gunman opened fire in a mall food court in Clackamas.

Sources told FOX 12 that Forsyth was one of the three people shot at the mall Tuesday afternoon. Forsyth and one other victim died of their injuries. The third shooting victim, Kristina Shevchenko, survived.

The Clackamas County Sheriff's Office has not confirmed the identity of the victims.

Forsyth owned a marketing agency in Portland, and formerly worked for Entercom Communications, which owns radio stations in the city.

A number of tweets shared early Wednesday expressed sympathy for Forsyth's children.

On Tuesday, witnesses said they saw the gunman jogging through Macy's and others reported seeing him pull out the gun and open fire in the food court area.

Witness Kelly Lay said the shooter did not appear to have an intended target. Lay was ordering a burrito at Taco Time in the food court when he heard the shots.

"All I could really see was gunshots and people scattering everywhere," Lay said.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Did our forefathers, when writing the constitution, envision that the amendment would be used to allow 18+ year olds to walk around in public with semi auto weapons like the kind used in these spree type killings?
Click to expand...

They envisioned all citizens would have the right to arm themselves with the current weaponry of the day, yes. I see people carrying guns here in Beautiful Central Oregon just about every day. Some "concealed", many others open-carry. I often open-carry.

The 2nd Amendment is the only strong deterrent to violence against citizens happening more than it does.

It should be obvious to all that our current gun laws, and all gun laws that have preceded them, have zero effect on what crazy people and criminals do, or whether or not they can obtains guns.
 
Last edited:
So the shooter was a 40 year old father of 2 from West Linn.......... crazy! I have a couple good friends of mine that worked with him at Entercom.......according to their facebook posts he was a real cool down to earth guy....... said they were with him last week at a christmas party and seemed normal! Maybe he just snapped!!!!
 
HCP said:
So the shooter was a 40 year old father of 2 from West Linn.......... crazy! I have a couple good friends of mine that worked with him at Entercom.......according to their facebook posts he was a real cool down to earth guy....... said they were with him last week at a christmas party and seemed normal! Maybe he just snapped!!!!
Click to expand...

He was one of the victims, not the shooter.

The shooter is a 22 y/o.
 
MARIS61 said:
They envisioned all citizens would have the right to arm themselves with the current weaponry of the day, yes.

The 2nd Amendment is the only strong deterrent to violence against citizens happening more than it does.
Click to expand...

MARIS, you are the one person on this board that I think can answer this question I posed from the perspective about which I'm curious.

PtldPlatypus said:
...what...is the necessary availability level for private armaments. Does anyone believe that people should own tanks or fighter jets? Where is the line, and who draws it?
Click to expand...

Would you be willing to comment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top