校园枪击: 死10人 at Umpqua Community College

lopped-ears

能逃肯定是是首选的，但是避不开怎么办？横竖都是死的话，那我怎么都要反抗一下。

我能问下楼主是在哪个州吗？

turbopascal

lopped-ears 发表于 2015-10-2 15:34
能逃肯定是是首选的，但是避不开怎么办？横竖都是死的话，那我怎么都要反抗一下。

我能问下楼主是在哪个州 ...

加州。我的公司是硅谷的一个高科技大公司。

firexl

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 15:54
加州。我的公司是硅谷的一个高科技大公司。

唉，大环境如此，不行就搬吧
你的同事是老白还是烙印还是老中？

dengdengdeng

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 17:54
加州。我的公司是硅谷的一个高科技大公司。

Just google it.
China has plenty of guns.
And they just killed 50 people in a mine in xinjiang using knife.

GLK

很多同事支持拥有枪支.

GLK

和6人谈过，零票反对，一个女人说她是怕枪

deserteagle

Huntington 发表于 2015-10-2 08:22
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。 ...

平时嫌它重，假如有一天碰到枪击，就希望它是重的，因为重才有质量挡子弹，这就是辩证法啊？

xgeorge

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 14:40
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 ...

搜一下中国幼儿园刀砍儿童案件吧。 没有枪也一样。而且是中国禁刀的环境下。还有昆明、新疆等地的砍人事件层出不穷。
前几天广西柳州的连环爆炸案。

另外，中国黑枪也多的是。

deserteagle

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）。 ...

我很喜欢你这几个观点：
1、为了不被吓愣，要在训练中强调mindset；
2、生死关头抗争过，死亦无憾；
3、破坏歹徒计划，挽救更多生命。

deserteagle

Laou168 发表于 2015-10-2 15:30
最后一拿

Laou兄投机啊，不发表意见却好意思拿子弹，而且还是四拿！

deserteagle

lopped-ears 发表于 2015-10-2 06:27
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
...

我感觉光买插板不好，因为买回来要配自己家里的包。每个挂包都不一样大，插进袋子时，小袋子插不进，袋子大了又会太松动。要买就买同一个公司出品的包和插板同一套的，反正也贵不到那里去！

Laou168

deserteagle 发表于 2015-10-2 18:49
Laou兄投机啊，不发表意见却好意思拿子弹，而且还是四拿！

有拿无类嘛。
沉默是金。

qlblx

deserteagle 发表于 2015-10-2 19:00
我感觉光买插板不好，因为买回来要配自己家里的包。每个挂包都不一样大，插进袋子时，小袋子插不进，袋子大 ...

自己的包有个好处，看起来很普通，不特别。配套的包不显眼也行。

brucewayne

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 17:40
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 ...

1. You can definitely get guns in China and there are criminals using guns all the time, such as Kehua Zhou. There are also massive killing using bomb and knifes. If you like controled by government, then China is the perfect place for you to live.

2.Gun control can't prevent massive shooting. Many shooters get their gun illegally like parents. Gun control can't stop suicide either. Just take a look at Japan.

3.You need a license to conceal carry a firearm, just like you need one to drive a car. However you don't need permission to buy one just like you don't need permission to buy a car.

4.You can run away from fist, bat or knife now. How about when you were 6, when you are 60? Simply see guns as tools, use it properly otherwise it will cause damage. Someone say guns are designed to kill. I don't agree. Police and military are not created to kill, they are created to protect and serve. Guns are the same, in the right hands they are used to hunt, used in competetion and in self-protection. It doesn't make sense just because there's a chance you may burn your house down then ban everyone from using fire.

doublepar

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 14:40
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 ...

Oh boy, there are so many holes in his argument, I don't know where to start.

Quote: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.


Reply:
Let's put aside the politics, the Constitution and what not just for one second, and pretend that both parties agree to ban guns in the U.S. Let's pretent that people don't have a natural, civil and constitutional right to defend themself again criminal and a potential tyrannic government. Somehow a bill of universal gun registration and confiscation becomes law and passes constitutional muster. Now please elaborate how we can achieve that goal. Guns are durable. They are not going away by themselves in a hundred years. There are already 300 million firearms in civilian hands. Where do you start? Going after criminals first? But their illegal guns are not registered (BTW, you can't force criminals to register their illegal guns because it's againt the 5th Amendment prohibition of self-incrimination). Going after registered guns first? Why do you want to disarm law abiding citizens first and leave them to the mercy of criminals that will have a monoply on firepower? Also, do you think that every single gun owner will be so docile to the idea of forcible confiscation of personal properties? What if some guys with chip on their shoulders react violently to law enforcement officers (I assume you sir, would pass such honorable duty) conducting the confiscation? Would you like to see bloodshed, not to mention trashing a shit load of amendments in the Bill of Rights along the way, to achieve your goal of a gun-free utopia? If your answer is yes, I have to say, you sir, are truly a monster. Oh, and here is the bad news, even if your side somehow manages to confiscate 99% of the guns in civilian hands, that leaves 3 million, which is more than the total number of small arms in the entire U.S. military.
I don't even want to reply your Reductio ad absurdum suggesting that I would encourage my children to pack heat in primary school. That has to wait until college.
And it IS better to be expelled than to be killed!

Runfirst

他们被持枪抢劫一次，就不会有这些讨论了。

qlblx

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 14:43
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 abo ...

我跳个简单的吧，估计是个年纪不大，图洋图生破的人的帖，

1.      A person is considered mature enough to use guns but not mature enough to drink beer

Comments:
In many states, the legal age to own a firearm is 18, the same as the voting age. I think this is reasonable. The legal drinking age is 21 in
many states, which I think is not reasonable, cause voting right is a much more prestigious right for an adult citizen than the drinking one.
The joke is the legal drinking age not the legal firearm ownership age.


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

Comments:
Owning a firearm to protect himself from the harm of either the tyranny or a criminal is a basic human right of everyone, and it is critical to preserving the constitution and freedom in this great country too. All states already have an existing process to do background checking in firearm purchase process. It is not difficult at all to learn the basic firearm safety and operation procedures, which normally takes 6-8 hours in an instructor led class or a few days for an adult with a high Scholl or higher education to do self-learning with the aid of either vendor manuals, or firearm books, or Internet firearm web sites. Obviously learning operating a firearm in a safe fashion is much easier than learning operating a vehicle, thus a licensing process is unnecessary. Adding some additional testing can be considered if it doesn't materially increase either the cost or the time compared to the existing process and it is reasonable.


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.

Comments:
NSA's current mass surveillance under the PATRIOT Act is under more and more criticism and objection pressure from the public. An instance of violating citizen's constitutional rights doesn't justify another violation.


难得你这么热心，在加州搞自由，宪法的宣传，群众基础薄弱。

doublepar

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 14:40
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 ...

Quote:

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.

Reply:

Mass shooting (or rampage shooting) although very prominent in media and people's psyche, is but an outlier in the whole picture of gun related crime. Many reports cite the fact that the U.S. has the largest number of mass shoorting incidents and fatality. It is true. But such claim forgets one thing, it doesn't correct for population. See the following chart? The U.S. doesn't even crack the top five in the developed countries for mass shooting fatality based on population.

That being said, there is some common denominators in all these mass shooting incidents. The perpetrators invariablly have some mental issue. They almost all happened in a designated gun free zone, where victims didn't have the means to defend themselves and there is no armed protection to that zone. Maybe we can examine what can do about that.

Suicide number is totally irrelavent to what means are used. An inanimate object doesn't have the magic to persuade a person to do one way or the other. Japan, with extremely restrictive gun laws, has twice the suicide rate of the U.S.

doublepar

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 14:43
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 abo ...

Quote:
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.


Answer:
1. Gun, as a tool, has a lot of practical uses. Hunting, target practice, competition, self protection, to name a few. The U.S. military accepts 18-year-olds to bear full automatic arms. I don't see there is a problem. On the other hand, under age drinking does have many risks, such as brain development problems, increased risk of assault, injuries, even death, according to NIH.
2. Operating a car or motorcycle on private properties does NOT require a license. Only driving on public road needs one. This is the equivalence of a concealed carry license issued by state. Oh, BTW, I do think a concealed carry license issued by another jurisdiction should be recognized by all states, just like driver's license.
3. How do you know NSA does know who owns what guns? I bet NSA knows a lot about yourself that even you don't know yourself. Are you happy now?

I think what endures this nation is exactly what happened 200 years ago, i.e., the vision of our founding fathers put into a document called the Constitution. Please do not take what we have now for granted. Being progressive and open minded doesn't mean that you have to accept any value/idea at face value and as equal.
丫要懂中文，就说，你们这帮小左，真是吃饱了撑的，别以为待在米国就算见过世界了。

doublepar

turbopascal 发表于 2015-10-2 15:17
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 lookin ...

Well, someone else said it better than I do.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com ... ease-violent-crime/
Key points:
“Castle doctrine” laws include three possible enhancements:
1. Remove Duty to Retreat, also called Stand Your Ground.
2. Presumption of Reasonable Fear
3. Civil Liability Protection
Not all “castle doctrine” states enact all three enhancements, nor do they necessarily enact them all at once.

Authors’ dataset contains errors and inaccurate assumptions

Cheng and Hoekstra compiled a table of 20 states that enacted some or all of these “castle doctrine” laws between 2000 and 2010, but 24 states enacted “castle doctrine” laws during their study period.
They claimed that Missouri enacted Stand Your Ground and civil protection, but Missouri law includes limited enhancements and shouldn’t be counted. Even so, their dataset contained many other errors. For example, they claimed 17 states removed the duty to retreat during their study period — actually, 19 did. Twenty-two states provide civil liability protection — the authors included only 17 (see graph below). They correctly noted that 13 states enacted Presumption of Reasonable Fear, but they ignored four states that enacted “castle doctrine” laws: Idaho (2006), Maine (2007), Wisconsin (2008), and Wyoming (2008).

Another problem with their dataset is that they equate Stand Your Ground with “castle doctrine”. The difference between enacting only Stand Your Ground and full “castle doctrine” is significant when looking at crime trends.

The authors also assumed that enhanced self-defense laws deter non-confrontational crimes like burglary. However, property crimes like burglary are more likely to increase when more citizens partake of their civil right of self-defense. In The Bias Against Guns, John Lott explained:

If you make something more difficult, people will be less likely to engage in it … just as grocery shoppers switch between different types of produce depending on costs, criminals switch between different kinds of prey depending on the cost of attacking. Economists call this, appropriately enough, “the substitution effect.”

Instead of violent, confrontational crime like robbery to obtain a victim’s property, criminals wait until victims leave home before committing burglary, which presents less personal risk to themselves.

FBI crime data support Lott’s premise. As more law-abiding citizens arm themselves, violent crimes drop and property crimes rise. Of all FBI major crime categories, only burglary increased between 2000 and 2010 (over 5%). Meanwhile, homicide incidents decreased over 5%, robbery decreased 10%, and aggravated assaults decreased 15%.

Cheng and Hoekstra claimed they wanted to determine “whether strengthening self-defense laws deters criminals,” but including burglary is simply an attempt to derogate “castle doctrine” for doing what it should: causing criminals to commit more property crimes and fewer violent crimes.

The authors altered their own conclusions by beginning with a misleading dataset.

FBI data show that “castle doctrine” correlates with less violent crime, not more

The authors attempted to guess what violent crime rates should have been had “castle doctrine” states not enhanced their self-defense laws by comparing them to non-“castle doctrine” states [page 3].

One way to determine if states benefitted from enhanced self-defense laws is to ask whether violent crime rates increase or decrease after enactment. If rates increased, then enacting “castle doctrine” laws created a “cost” because higher rates meant greater victimization. If rates decreased, then these laws created a “savings” because of less victimization after enactment.

Averaging five or more years together gives a picture of the general level of violence during that time period. For the states in this study, the average year they enacted “castle doctrine” laws was 2006. Including non-enacting states’ performance before and after 2006 provides a comparison to see how well states did without enhanced self-defense laws. This dataset includes “before” years of 2000-2005 and “after” years of 2006-2010. For Stand Your Ground and full “castle doctrine” states, their year of enactment defines “before” and “after” periods, each with their murder, robbery, and aggravated assault rates averaged. If the average crime rate was lower in the “after” period, the state became safer.

The truth? States that adopted all three “castle doctrine” laws experienced the largest declines in all three violent crime rates, handily besting non-adopting states.

Stand Your Ground states (removing Duty to Retreat but not necessarily Civil Immunity Protection and Presumption of Reasonable Fear) averaged larger decreases in murder rates than non-adopting states, too. While their aggravated assaults declined on par with non-adopting states, their robbery rates — while dropping after enactment — declined less than non-adopting states.

These data suggest that Cheng and Hoekstra had a point only if their sole conclusion highlighted the smaller benefits of enacting No Duty to Retreat laws alone. To claim that homicide increased is questionable at best.

Most importantly, Cheng and Hoekstra suggested these laws affect crime rates. If true, the data show adopting all three “castle doctrine” laws causes a noticeable decrease in violent crime.