saakura Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 This is horrible but for some reason this is the first time I don't feel any emotions. CNN is blah blah blah why did he do it and I just think he probably got a B- and wanted a B and went down to the local Walmart and got a gun and killed people. I thought Obamas speech wasn't that bad and he referenced the UK AND Australia changing their gun laws but I agree most likely nothing will be done. If a bunch of first graders in a very wealthy state in a very wealthy town " Newtown" Connecticut got slaughtered and nothing really changed how can the gun laws ever change. On the other hand there are sooo many guns n the USA I don't really know how they can change things like this happening. Does anyone on here have a real suggestion? Perhaps not use this thread to bash the USA and really offer suggestions. Id like to hear (read) them. Thanks Early reports suggest that he had problems with women. Sexual frustration, constantly rejected. America is filled with these sorts of dudes. Sexual frustration at the age of 20?? Then they should teach them how to masturbate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Why would some Nitwit want to know what his motive was for shooting and killing those people,, It does not <deleted> matter, ,the people are staying Death no matter the motive.What a waste of human lives,and some nitwit is looking for a motive.If I kill a person because he killed my wife and family as opposed to a random traffic accident I would say the motive is very important. If I kill a person because of his race or religion or sexual orientation there are different penalities in the USA as opposed to killing a person in the commission of a crime. Hate crimes in the USA carry different penalities so the motive is of supreme importance in passing sentance on a perpatrator of a crime. Judges and police in the USA are tasked to discover the motive in all cases of crime, so that is why those nitwits need to know. In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. So I guess you could say the people who wrote the USA criminal code are nitwits. No, in US criminal law motive is not an essential element.legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive Edited October 2, 2015 by Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 No, in US criminal law motive is not an essential element. In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes. In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) No, in US criminal law motive is not an essential element. In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes. In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Only for hate crime. But you never said that. You said n criminal law you must prove motive. That is not correct. From my link, which doesnt appear to actually link for some reason.... in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime such as jealousy, greed, revenge, or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime. Edit: in any event motive is a non issue here as they dont have to prove anything. Edited October 2, 2015 by Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 No, in US criminal law motive is not an essential element. In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes. In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. The first paragraph is wrong. Motive does not have to be established. The rest of the quote pertains to sentencing, not trial, where motive must be established to render it a hate crime. But that is on sentencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 No, in US criminal law motive is not an essential element. In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes. In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. The first paragraph is wrong. Motive does not have to be established. The rest of the quote pertains to sentencing, not trial, where motive must be established to render it a hate crime. But that is on sentencing. Sorry but you are being silly. Motive is of prime importance. Look at estblishing accident vs on purpose. I can drop a gun and it may go off by accident killing a person. I can also point it his head and yell, "take this you Christian person." Two entirely different things. HItler's motive for killing people was genocide. Churchill's motive was to save people from genocide. Both killed but motive made the difference between madman and hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 No, in US criminal law motive is not an essential element. In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes. In both crime and law, hate crime (also known as bias-motivated crime) is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. The first paragraph is wrong. Motive does not have to be established.The rest of the quote pertains to sentencing, not trial, where motive must be established to render it a hate crime. But that is on sentencing. Sorry but you are being silly. Motive is of prime importance. Look at estblishing accident vs on purpose. I can drop a gun and it may go off by accident killing a person. I can also point it his head and yell, "take this you Christian person." Two entirely different things. HItler's motive for killing people was genocide. Churchill's motive was to save people from genocide. Both killed but motive made the difference between madman and hero. I am not being silly, yes i agree it can and usually is of prime importance but it is not an essential element for guilt. That is the law. Motive is necessary in the sentence faze if you want to prove a hate crime. Motive is not an essential element to prove in trial. If you cannot prove motive the person can still be found guilty. Your point about dropping a gun has nothing to do with motive, but intent. To prove murder there must be proof of intent, not motive. Though motive is a very good thng to have, by law it is not an essential ellement for guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Identified as a muslim? That means you can expect this story to disappear in an instant on CNN and the other mainstream US media. No idea if he is muslim or not, but so far he has not been identified as one. The only one claiming that is in the link of lostoday, where the 'identification' is based on a blog where one of his few contacts appears to be a muslim. How many groups of people go around shooting Christians today? Chris Harper Mercer a/k/a Chris Harper-Mercer, age 26, has been identified as the mass murderer in today’s killing of 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Was he Muslim? Well, he forced students to identify their religion, and he shot at those who said they were Christian. And his MySpace page, featuring a picture of him with a rifle, identifes only two friends, one of whom is an extremist Muslim (redundant phrase). His Facebook page is obsessed with Ahmed Mohamed, the bomb clock Muslim. And he said he liked to torture insects. Sicko. Also, he was a fan of a terrorist group that trained with a Palestinian Muslim terrorist group. Harper Mercer’s MySpace page, which identifies him as Chris Harper-Mercer, shows that he has two friends, one of whom is Mahmoud Ali Ehsani. Ehsani, who created a classy custom MySpace URL of “dick_hard_like_a_pistol” (let’s hear it for that “Islamic modesty” they keep lecturing us about), has two photos on his MySpace page–a koran and the symbol of Islam. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/79886/chris-harper-mercer-was-ucc-mass-murderer-muslim-obsessed-w-muslims-bomb-clock-liked-to-torture-insects/ Chinese whispers or spin going on. He did not ask for Christians, he asked people to stand up and asked what their religion was. He did not target Christians, he shot indiscriminately. How many people go around shooting groups of Christians??? You have a short memory of a confederate flag waving white guy in a black CHRISTIAN church recently. (yet another mass shooting!) I daresay most of the mass shootings between blacks or between Hispanics or between each other are Christian-on-Christian. Edited October 2, 2015 by Seastallion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaeJoMTB Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Cue the gun nuts with the old "if we had more guns this wouldn't of happened" or "if he used a knife you wouldn't ban knives" or "it's always illegally gained guns" used in these incidents or any of the rest of bullshit they spout to avoid having their guns taken and proper gun control laws. Never ending. If everyone in the class was armed, he would never have got 12! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 The first paragraph is wrong. Motive does not have to be established.The rest of the quote pertains to sentencing, not trial, where motive must be established to render it a hate crime. But that is on sentencing. Sorry but you are being silly. Motive is of prime importance. Look at estblishing accident vs on purpose. I can drop a gun and it may go off by accident killing a person. I can also point it his head and yell, "take this you Christian person." Two entirely different things. HItler's motive for killing people was genocide. Churchill's motive was to save people from genocide. Both killed but motive made the difference between madman and hero. I am not being silly, yes i agree it can and usually is of prime importance but it is not an essential element for guilt. That is the law. Motive is necessary in the sentence faze if you want to prove a hate crime. Motive is not an essential element to prove in trial. If you cannot prove motive the person can still be found guilty. Your point about dropping a gun has nothing to do with motive, but intent. To prove murder there must be proof of intent, not motive. Though motive is a very good thng to have, by law it is not an essential ellement for guilt. Motive and intent is the same thing in all but a court of law. For TV purposes there is no difference between motive and intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaeJoMTB Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) This is horrible but for some reason this is the first time I don't feel any emotions. CNN is blah blah blah why did he do it and I just think he probably got a B- and wanted a B and went down to the local Walmart and got a gun and killed people. I thought Obamas speech wasn't that bad and he referenced the UK AND Australia changing their gun laws but I agree most likely nothing will be done. If a bunch of first graders in a very wealthy state in a very wealthy town " Newtown" Connecticut got slaughtered and nothing really changed how can the gun laws ever change. On the other hand there are sooo many guns n the USA I don't really know how they can change things like this happening. Does anyone on here have a real suggestion? Perhaps not use this thread to bash the USA and really offer suggestions. Id like to hear (read) them. Thanks Early reports suggest that he had problems with women. Sexual frustration, constantly rejected. America is filled with these sorts of dudes. The movement is called "True Forced Loneliness" The proponents of TFL claim that they are being forced to be lonely because of society's judgmental culture of high expectations in courtship. This, in turn, causes these men to be left without mates. Their answer is to kill those women who reject them, or those males more successful than them. Edited October 2, 2015 by MaeJoMTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Chinese whispers or spin going on. He did not ask for Christians, he asked people to stand up and asked what their religion was. He did not target Christians, he shot indiscriminately. How many people go around shooting groups of Christians??? You have a short memory of a confederate flag waving white guy in a black CHRISTIAN church recently. (yet another mass shooting!) I daresay most of the mass shootings between blacks or between Hispanics or between each other are Christian-on-Christian. It appears the Chinese whispers are you. The Confederate flag guy shot black people it was a racist hate crime. The Oregon shooting was a religious hate crime. “[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN. http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 The first paragraph is wrong. Motive does not have to be established. The rest of the quote pertains to sentencing, not trial, where motive must be established to render it a hate crime. But that is on sentencing. Sorry but you are being silly. Motive is of prime importance. Look at estblishing accident vs on purpose. I can drop a gun and it may go off by accident killing a person. I can also point it his head and yell, "take this you Christian person." Two entirely different things. HItler's motive for killing people was genocide. Churchill's motive was to save people from genocide. Both killed but motive made the difference between madman and hero. I am not being silly, yes i agree it can and usually is of prime importance but it is not an essential element for guilt. That is the law. Motive is necessary in the sentence faze if you want to prove a hate crime. Motive is not an essential element to prove in trial. If you cannot prove motive the person can still be found guilty.Your point about dropping a gun has nothing to do with motive, but intent. To prove murder there must be proof of intent, not motive. Though motive is a very good thng to have, by law it is not an essential ellement for guilt. Motive and intent is the same thing in all but a court of law. For TV purposes there is no difference between motive and intent. Umm ok if thats what you want to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I think you guys are off topic. The thread is about a Muslim guy asking students who is a Christian and then shooting them. It's a common theme in the Middle East and has arrived numerous times on Western shores. Why are you trying to make it about gun control? I have not read anything that says the guy was Muslim. In his dating profile, the guy says he's a conservative Republican, no religion. What religion comes to mind when asking people if they are Christian and then shooting them? Other Christians? Fundamental atheists? Remember, the guy only asked for his victims' faith, and he didn't like 'organised religions' Maybe Christians were the only believers available for him. I don't know about the religious beliefs of the survivors, just a strange idea that this guy might have been a "psychopathic" materialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vogie Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Be warned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I am not being silly, yes i agree it can and usually is of prime importance but it is not an essential element for guilt. That is the law. Motive is necessary in the sentence faze if you want to prove a hate crime. Motive is not an essential element to prove in trial. If you cannot prove motive the person can still be found guilty.Your point about dropping a gun has nothing to do with motive, but intent. To prove murder there must be proof of intent, not motive. Though motive is a very good thng to have, by law it is not an essential ellement for guilt. Motive and intent is the same thing in all but a court of law. For TV purposes there is no difference between motive and intent. Umm ok if thats what you want to think. motive noun noun: motive; plural noun: motives a reason for doing something. "police were unable to establish a motive for his murder" synonyms: reason, motivation, motivating force, rationale, grounds, cause, basis, occasion, thinking, the whys and wherefores, object, purpose, intention Edited October 2, 2015 by lostoday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uksomchai Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 So can someone here tell me why people still get shot in the UK when handguns and rifles have been banned for years now ? Simply banning guns doesn't work. I would rather see the focus for these crimes aimed at the big Pharma companies that are handing out via doctors huge amounts of very dangerous drugs. These drugs are far more dangerous than guns Because banning guns doesnt eliminate gun deaths. But it sure does reduce it. Thought that would be obvious. It may appear to be obvious but it isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. The first search I did brings up a figure of an 89% increase in gun crimes since they were banned in the UK and that was back in 2009 so not that obvious then ? I think that where guns have been banned from certain cities in America gun crime has risen. I also remember reading that most if not all these mass shootings have taken place in places where guns are banned from being carried anyway and are actively targeted because of that reason. As said banning them doesn't work as such and other reasons for these crimes need to be looked into more in depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I think probably just another gun loving nutcase looking for eternal glory. He was probably trying for a kill record but failed. I don't see any hard evidence that it was particularly ideological for anything in particular. He obviously had realized his life wasn't going to amount to anything and this was his play to be somebody. I understand the local people who say don't say his name but that really can't be helped. Edited October 2, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Cue the gun nuts with the old "if we had more guns this wouldn't of happened" or "if he used a knife you wouldn't ban knives" or "it's always illegally gained guns" used in these incidents or any of the rest of bullshit they spout to avoid having their guns taken and proper gun control laws. Never ending. If everyone in the class was armed, he would never have got 12! No, but how many would have got each other, and how many would have got each other at other random times when someone spits the dummy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I am not being silly, yes i agree it can and usually is of prime importance but it is not an essential element for guilt. That is the law. Motive is necessary in the sentence faze if you want to prove a hate crime. Motive is not an essential element to prove in trial. If you cannot prove motive the person can still be found guilty.Your point about dropping a gun has nothing to do with motive, but intent. To prove murder there must be proof of intent, not motive. Though motive is a very good thng to have, by law it is not an essential ellement for guilt.Motive and intent is the same thing in all but a court of law. For TV purposes there is no difference between motive and intent. Umm ok if thats what you want to think. motive noun noun: motive; plural noun: motives a reason for doing something. "police were unable to establish a motive for his murder" synonyms: reason, motivation, motivating force, rationale, grounds, cause, basis, occasion, thinking, the whys and wherefores, object, purpose,intention Use google to search motive and intent difference. Motive is the reason, the thought. Intent is the action. They are not the same so stop trying to say it is. In law, to be convicted of murder intent must be proven. Motive does not. It is that simple. Move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaeJoMTB Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I think probably just another gun loving nutcase looking for eternal glory. He was probably trying for a kill record but failed. I don't see any hard evidence that it was particularly ideological for anything in particular. He obviously had realized his life wasn't going to amount to anything and this was his play to be somebody. I understand the local people who say don't say his name but that really can't be helped. Nah, too hard to achieve a new kill record in a school. (Record US spree kill 35) Crowded baseball or football stadium would give you a better chance. Edited October 2, 2015 by MaeJoMTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Chinese whispers or spin going on. He did not ask for Christians, he asked people to stand up and asked what their religion was. He did not target Christians, he shot indiscriminately. How many people go around shooting groups of Christians??? You have a short memory of a confederate flag waving white guy in a black CHRISTIAN church recently. (yet another mass shooting!) I daresay most of the mass shootings between blacks or between Hispanics or between each other are Christian-on-Christian. It appears the Chinese whispers are you. The Confederate flag guy shot black people it was a racist hate crime. The Oregon shooting was a religious hate crime. “[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN. http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/ No, i read what's presented and opine on that. I don't read and then project. You asked, "How many groups of people go around shooting Christians today? " I answered correctly. The black congregation were indeed Christians killed by a non-Muslim white guy. Today's nutter, who you wrongly assume is Muslim (based on one online contact and "who kills Christians these days?), is a nutter, not a Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Motive and intent is the same thing in all but a court of law. For TV purposes there is no difference between motive and intent. Umm ok if thats what you want to think. motive noun noun: motive; plural noun: motives a reason for doing something. "police were unable to establish a motive for his murder" synonyms: reason, motivation, motivating force, rationale, grounds, cause, basis, occasion, thinking, the whys and wherefores, object, purpose,intention Use google to search motive and intent difference. Motive is the reason, the thought. Intent is the action. They are not the same so stop trying to say it is. In law, to be convicted of murder intent must be proven. Motive does not. It is that simple. Move on You wrote, "No, in US criminal law motive is not an essential element." What is your motive for trying to say the man's motive is not important in the killing of 9 Christians? Edited October 2, 2015 by lostoday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 So can someone here tell me why people still get shot in the UK when handguns and rifles have been banned for years now ? Simply banning guns doesn't work. I would rather see the focus for these crimes aimed at the big Pharma companies that are handing out via doctors huge amounts of very dangerous drugs. These drugs are far more dangerous than guns Because banning guns doesnt eliminate gun deaths. But it sure does reduce it.Thought that would be obvious. It may appear to be obvious but it isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. The first search I did brings up a figure of an 89% increase in gun crimes since they were banned in the UK and that was back in 2009 so not that obvious then ? I think that where guns have been banned from certain cities in America gun crime has risen. I also remember reading that most if not all these mass shootings have taken place in places where guns are banned from being carried anyway and are actively targeted because of that reason. As said banning them doesn't work as such and other reasons for these crimes need to be looked into more in depth Somalia must be a very peaceful place with all those guns. It s no use having cities banning guns as people can still get them elsewhere and keep them at home. Guns are dangerous things to have in the home, kids have found ways to get to them with tragic consequences. Also very dangerous in domestics, lose your temper and it can escalate to a shooting if a gun is available. If one isnt available then the instant anger may be a beating instead of a shooting. I dont hear of many school shootings in australia, glad we never had the gun psych when I went to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I really hope this isn't the start of an ATHEIST Jihadist movement because then I'll have to plan for long delays at airports. In that part of Oregon (I've been there) most everyone is Christian, either a believer or a casual Christmas tree type Christian. Edited October 2, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Motive and intent is the same thing in all but a court of law. For TV purposes there is no difference between motive and intent. Umm ok if thats what you want to think. motivenounnoun: motive; plural noun: motivesa reason for doing something."police were unable to establish a motive for his murder"synonyms: reason, motivation, motivating force, rationale, grounds, cause, basis, occasion, thinking, the whys and wherefores, object, purpose,intention Use google to search motive and intent difference. Motive is the reason, the thought. Intent is the action. They are not the same so stop trying to say it is.In law, to be convicted of murder intent must be proven. Motive does not.It is that simple. Move on What is your motive for trying to say the man's motive is not important in the killing of 9 Christians? I dont think i said it wasnt important. Happy to be corrected but dont think it matters anyway. I was replying to you saying motive had to be proved in court.If the guy is now dead then nothing needs to be proved anyway so its not important.Shall we get back on topic though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Guns were as powerful as 100 years ago? Please tell me about many sub rifles machine guns they had with their muskets ? The answer to your last question is simple : it is easier and easier for disturbed people to get guns.. And lot of teenagers are temporarly or not. The question the pro guns never answer to is : why so many shooting in USA and not so much in europe? Why since Australia restricted gun there was not any mass shooting? Thompson sub machine gun invented 105 years ago 600 rounds per minute. Browning Automatic rifle invented 105 years ago 600 rounds per minute. Any other questions? Bolt action rifle 1824 Muskets obsolete by 1860. Does anyone on here actually think that a law restricting guns in the US will remove guns from the criminals? The only people that will hand in weapons are the law abiding ones. Criminals and insane people will have no problem obtaining guns. There are millions of unregistered guns out there right now. Edited October 2, 2015 by thaibeachlovers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uksomchai Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 So can someone here tell me why people still get shot in the UK when handguns and rifles have been banned for years now ? Simply banning guns doesn't work. I would rather see the focus for these crimes aimed at the big Pharma companies that are handing out via doctors huge amounts of very dangerous drugs. These drugs are far more dangerous than guns Because banning guns doesnt eliminate gun deaths. But it sure does reduce it.Thought that would be obvious. It may appear to be obvious but it isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. The first search I did brings up a figure of an 89% increase in gun crimes since they were banned in the UK and that was back in 2009 so not that obvious then ? I think that where guns have been banned from certain cities in America gun crime has risen. I also remember reading that most if not all these mass shootings have taken place in places where guns are banned from being carried anyway and are actively targeted because of that reason. As said banning them doesn't work as such and other reasons for these crimes need to be looked into more in depth Somalia must be a very peaceful place with all those guns. It s no use having cities banning guns as people can still get them elsewhere and keep them at home. Guns are dangerous things to have in the home, kids have found ways to get to them with tragic consequences. Also very dangerous in domestics, lose your temper and it can escalate to a shooting if a gun is available. If one isnt available then the instant anger may be a beating instead of a shooting. I dont hear of many school shootings in australia, glad we never had the gun psych when I went to school. I don't know about school shootings but there has just been another shooting outside a police station there, two dead iif I recall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Somalia must be a very peaceful place with all those guns. It s no use having cities banning guns as people can still get them elsewhere and keep them at home. Guns are dangerous things to have in the home, kids have found ways to get to them with tragic consequences. Also very dangerous in domestics, lose your temper and it can escalate to a shooting if a gun is available. If one isnt available then the instant anger may be a beating instead of a shooting. I dont hear of many school shootings in australia, glad we never had the gun psych when I went to school. News is reporting shooting at an Aussie police station right now. Children were earlier locked inside the centre as police investigated the crime scene. Father Dennis Entriken told The Daily Telegraphthey all hoped their kids had been spared the sight and sounds of the horror. “Unfortunately the children are still inside - we can’t get access to them and they can’t come out,” he said. “Because one of the bodies is quite literally on the ground at the entrance to the childcare centre.” http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/two-people-shot-dead-outside-nsw-police-headquarters-in-parramatta/story-fnj3rq0y-1227554475942 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Identified as a muslim? That means you can expect this story to disappear in an instant on CNN and the other mainstream US media. No idea if he is muslim or not, but so far he has not been identified as one. The only one claiming that is in the link of lostoday, where the 'identification' is based on a blog where one of his few contacts appears to be a muslim. How many groups of people go around shooting Christians today? Chris Harper Mercer a/k/a Chris Harper-Mercer, age 26, has been identified as the mass murderer in today’s killing of 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Was he Muslim? Well, he forced students to identify their religion, and he shot at those who said they were Christian. And his MySpace page, featuring a picture of him with a rifle, identifes only two friends, one of whom is an extremist Muslim (redundant phrase). His Facebook page is obsessed with Ahmed Mohamed, the bomb clock Muslim. And he said he liked to torture insects. Sicko. Also, he was a fan of a terrorist group that trained with a Palestinian Muslim terrorist group. Harper Mercer’s MySpace page, which identifies him as Chris Harper-Mercer, shows that he has two friends, one of whom is Mahmoud Ali Ehsani. Ehsani, who created a classy custom MySpace URL of “dick_hard_like_a_pistol” (let’s hear it for that “Islamic modesty” they keep lecturing us about), has two photos on his MySpace page–a koran and the symbol of Islam. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/79886/chris-harper-mercer-was-ucc-mass-murderer-muslim-obsessed-w-muslims-bomb-clock-liked-to-torture-insects/ Chinese whispers or spin going on. He did not ask for Christians, he asked people to stand up and asked what their religion was. He did not target Christians, he shot indiscriminately. How many people go around shooting groups of Christians??? You have a short memory of a confederate flag waving white guy in a black CHRISTIAN church recently. (yet another mass shooting!) I daresay most of the mass shootings between blacks or between Hispanics or between each other are Christian-on-Christian. According to the tv news I saw, he shot those that said they were Christian in the head and those that weren't or didn't say he shot in the leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now