校园枪击: 死10人 at Umpqua Community College

lopped-ears

oldben 发表于 2015-10-2 04:50
这个够大了，会不会比较重？

看来要搞个插板团购了。

我翻看以前的帖子，之前搞过一次团购。那次团购的防弹插板不知道怎么样

oldben

問宗教信仰後爆頭…美校園濫射10死

編譯張玉琴／綜合俄勒岡州1日電
October 2, 2015, 6:30 am
http://www.worldjournal.com/

俄勒岡州南部的溫普瓜社區學院(Umpqua Community College)1日驚傳死傷慘重的濫射案，26歲槍手在教室內冷血濫殺，開槍殺死九名學生，打傷七名學生；警方說，這名開槍男子與警方在校園內交火後，中彈死亡。初步調查顯示，此案可能和恐怖攻擊無關。但倖存者稱，兇手在開槍前，先問學生的宗教信仰，回答為基督徒者，均遭槍殺。

警方稍後公布槍手為莫瑟(Chris Harper Mercer)，聯邦執法人員說，槍手據信與家人一起住在俄勒岡州。哥倫比亞廣播網報導，調查人員稍後在現場發現四把槍械，其中包括一支獵槍、三把手槍。莫瑟在約會網站的資料指稱，莫瑟未婚，是混血兒，和父母同住，無宗教信仰，但據稱他參加了「不喜歡宗教組織」的團體。
俄勒岡州檢察長羅林布魯等官員曾表示，血案中有13人死亡，當局正調查槍手是否有特定射殺目標，而非無目標的濫射；但據媒體報導，此案可能涉及宗教信仰，路透報導說，槍手開槍前，曾詢問每個人的宗教信仰；紐約郵報也引用目擊者的話報導，如果是基督徒，槍手就朝頭開槍，非基督徒，則對著腿開槍。

據信莫瑟與該校有關連，目前仍不確定他攜帶了多少子彈。

這是今年8月以來美國大學校園第四宗槍擊案。歐巴馬總統在傍晚也沉痛地以憤怒的語調發表聲明，要求國會通過管制槍枝的法案。

倖存者科特妮‧莫爾(Kortney Moore)說，她上寫作課時，一顆子彈射穿窗戶，隨即槍手即進入她的教室。莫爾說，槍手在開槍前叫受害者站起來，自報宗教信仰。這位18歲學生躺在受害者的身側，僥倖逃過一劫。

俄州州長布朗的發言人克莉絲汀‧葛林傑證實，槍手是該校學生。KATU電台引述該校人員報導 ，槍聲是從英語系大樓Snyder Hall傳出。當局表示，此事件看來應與國際恐怖組織無關。

有線電視新聞網(CNN)報導，槍手在一個社交網站貼文指出，此槍案是預謀，他挑選這所社區學院作為「軟目標」。

事發當時在學校的23歲溫德說，他聽到「砰」一聲巨響，接著是連續槍聲，然後看到學生「像螞蟻一樣地」四處奔逃。

住在學校對街的部分民眾則以為，聽的聲音是鞭炮聲。一名警察指出，警方據報前往現場與槍手交火時，他站在圖書館旁，同時有35人瑟縮在大樓角落，擔心自己性命隨時不保。

19歲的漢娜‧邁爾斯進該學院才四天，當時她正上寫作課，聽到隔壁教室傳來噪音，本來不以為意，接連傳出更多巨響後，邁爾斯的老師艾咪‧費爾打開兩間教堂的門察看狀況，她發現不對勁後馬上轉回自己教室，把學生推出教室。

在學生逃離大樓途中，費爾一路敲擊其他教室大門，呼喊讓大家立刻離開。等學生逃到大樓外後，奔跑到校園書店，躲到後方房間後趕忙報警。警方接獲電話指稱該校發生槍擊，雙方交火後，警察無線通話中即聽到：「嫌犯倒下。」

Huntington

网上有的反馈说两磅，有的说三磅，一致都说不重。看来大家的对重量的容忍度高啊。等我拿到手了再秤一下。

Huntington

Jena 发表于 2015-10-1 21:31
没人反抗么？就按照歹徒说的站成一排？

人的弱点，（1）没怎么见过枪，吓傻了 （2）囚徒心态，觉得谁跑谁必死，不跑还有生机，南京大屠杀的时候人们还自己排队一批一批地进屠场呢。群体没有血性也挺可怕的。

xgeorge

如果教师隐蔽携枪，凶手就没这么容易屠杀平民！

TofuSan

Teacher was shot first through a window.  Students were shot one by one.   Distance is a friend when one has a gun. If students were shot at point blank range, they might have had a chance to tackle the gunman.

Huntington

TexasGunNut 发表于 2015-10-1 17:47
奧馬桶又板著個臉出來發布會了。

聽了一下，雖然邏輯看似縝密，言之鑿鑿，但是根本禁不起推敲。

问题是能推敲的听众少啊。

我就奇怪，新闻自由，民主自由的国家，这种选举的大问题为什么不进行一次理性的对话呢？双方好好说自己的理由，即使不能说服对方也让大家好好思考这个问题。

现在电视节目里就喜欢每边给几十秒然后大吵的方式，热闹是热闹，收视率也高，但没有讨论问题的诚意。不过看看是谁掌控的媒体也不奇怪，洗脑没商量。

Huntington

TofuSan 发表于 2015-10-2 10:03
Teacher was shot first through a window.  Students were shot one by one.   Distance is a friend when ...

嗯，看来背包里放防弹插片很有用，可背着跑跑也可堵枪眼往上冲并招呼大家一起上。。。

Jena

Huntington 发表于 2015-10-2 10:34
人的弱点，（1）没怎么见过枪，吓傻了 （2）囚徒心态，觉得谁跑谁必死，不跑还有生机，南京大屠杀的时候 ...

如果，我没有被愣住的话（有时候，在巨大stress下容易发生；这就是为啥很多高级CCW训练，强调mindset）。
那么，从主观意志上，我一定会抗争到底，哪怕最后结局是死亡。
除了穷凶极恶、杀人麻木的歹徒以外，一般歹徒最高兴的就是按照他的计划执行。
而反抗，可以阻碍他的原有计划，从而争取更多时间，和保护更多生命。

Huntington

Jena 发表于 2015-10-2 11:46
如果，我没有被愣住的话（有时候，在巨大stress下容易发生；这就是为啥很多高级CCW训练，强调mindset）。 ...

别的情况可能我会审时度势，排队枪决我是肯定反抗的，横竖是一死，反抗有生机，死了也算对得起自己。
总得来说，每顺从一步，离死亡就近一步，有机会就逃生，不可能等到100%的好机会。

turbopascal

我在公司内部的邮件列表表示拥枪，遭到大家的一致反对

下面同事是几个回帖，我分开发一下，谁有兴趣的就用英文反驳一下：

I disagree with the statement "bad guys can get guns no matter what". You can't get a gun in China, and there are no mass shootings occurances, despite many who are upset with a lot of things. I'd much prefer to run away from a bad guy with knife or syringe than some random punk with an automatic weapon. The question is simply whether there are enough will to do it. Sure it will take decades to weed out the billions of guns already in circulation, but it can be done.

But again the other side is too powerful so this is extremely unlikely to happen, (think about all the jobs the gun industry's going to lose). So the next best thing is to train your kids early to be an experts marksman, and pack a fully loaded gun in his/her backpack so he/she can be a hero the next time someone decides to shoot up a school. It's better to be expelled than to be killed.

turbopascal

同事反对我的拥枪观点的回帖，谁有兴趣的就用英文反驳一下：

I never said we can eliminate gun deaths or avoid bad guys having them. I realize that is just not possible. If you read what I said carefully, I was trying to address the two sources of gun deaths for which we can totally do something, and those are mass shootings and suicides. Note that in neither of these two cases there is a “bad guy” involved. Suicide prevention needs not only gun control but other measures as well.

If everyone believes that “nothing should be done and guns is the answer to everything”, then let’s just continue to mourn such killings because there will be plenty more to come.

turbopascal

同事更多的反对我的拥枪观点的回帖，谁有兴趣的就用英文反驳一下：

To me the most ridiculous things about this country are:

1.      A person is considered mature enough to use guns but not mature enough to drink beer
2.      Something as dangerous and responsibility-laden item such as a gun does not need a license (not everywhere at least), whereas a car/motorcycle does. Fine if you want a gun then write a written test, perform a shooting test and then keep renewing your license once every two years, keep your gun and be happy
3.      We have complicated databases and collect so much information about citizens using patriot act but refuse to note a simple thing, whether someone owns a gun or not, simply because the government can act upon that information ? Come on give me a break, with the kind of information NSA has about us they can do a lot more damage to you compared to taking away your gun or targeting you.

At the same time I realize that this country has the potential to be very progressive and open minded and will eventually do the right thing in the long run, but until then lets face the consequences of stupid things that we still do because of events that happened 200 years ago.

turbopascal

同事更多的反对我的拥枪观点的回帖，谁有兴趣的就用英文反驳一下：

You cannot be so sure just by looking at one study from a single city. Allow me to present the castle doctrine study which was done in 20 states over a period of 10 years, which is statistically more significant than your single city of 30 years :

http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

" From  2000  to  2010,  more  than  20  states  passed
So called “castle  doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws.
These  laws  expand  the  legal  justification  for  the  use  of  lethal  force  in
Self defense,  thereby  lowering  the  expected  cost  of  using  lethal  force  and
increasing  the expected cost of  committing violent crime. This paper  exploits the within
state variation in  self defense  law  to  examine their  effect on  homicides  and  violent
crime. Results indicate  the  laws  do  not  deter  burglary,  robbery,  or  aggravated
assault. In  contrast,  they lead  to  a  statistically  significant  8  percent  net  
increase  in  the number  of  reported  murders and non-negligent manslaughters"

Also I can point you to some studies done in predominantly African-American neighborhoods (don’t have the link with me now) where the fear of being viewed as non-conforming among their "brothers" far outweighs the fear of taking a risk and getting into an armed conflict, so I now have two studies to negate yours. Also the approach you mention has not been tested in any other city across USA where the socio-economic factors might be significantly different that you may not see the same outcomes.

turbopascal

同事反对我的拥枪观点的回帖，谁有兴趣的就用英文反驳一下：

>> there are 30 innocent victims for every self defense shooting
> Where did you get this number?

Sorry, I misremembered. It's 34:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ne ... nnocent-people-die/

Along the same lines:

http://news.yahoo.com/guns-dont- ... inds-180710261.html

Guns in homes are a serious safety issue
30 years of fact in Kennesaw proves that guns in every home actually
reduces crime in that city to a significant level.
the notion that flooding the market with unwanted guns would make us
safer is a fantasy unsupported by facts
If you read the article about Kennesaw I referred in my last email, you
can see that it is a fact supported by last 30 years history of Kennesaw.

Kennesaw is not a controlled study, or of sufficient scale to inform national policy. The decrease in crime rates there can easily be explained by a number of factors that have decreased crime nationwide.

Australia, on the other hand, shows very clear results:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ne ... -work-in-australia/

You'll note that even at the scale of an entire nation, 35-50% reduction in homicides was still not statistically significant, but the change in the suicide rate *was* statistically significant, and the rate at which suicides dropped correlated significantly with the rate of the gun buybacks. There may be a personal liberty issue with making it more difficult for people to kill themselves, but making it more difficult for people to kill themselves certainly makes them safer.

Kennesaw is an anecdote. There are many such anecdotes out there that you can pick and choose, but aggregating the ones consistent with your worldview does not make them into statistically significant data. All the nation-scale studies that account for substitution effects and all the other things that sociologists and epidemiologists account for show that all else being equal, more guns makes us less safe. What you're suggesting is that we keep all else equal and add more guns where they're least likely to be used responsibly, for which there is no scientific justification to support the claim that it makes us safer.

turbopascal

同事反对我的拥枪观点的回帖，谁有兴趣的就用英文反驳一下：

Since I only trust data, can you tell me what is the current gun ownership rate in Kennewick ? The law excludes people who do not want to own a gun from this rule because of personal or religious reasons. If the ownership is the same as the national average or it is even lower, then there is not much of a debate.

Laou168

拿

Laou168

再拿

Laou168

三拿

Laou168

最后一拿