Mall Gunman Wanted to Kill Many: Police

[GobbleDog 1,006]

Shooter Identified:

 

22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts, a resident of southeast Portland Linkage with photo

 

 

He kind of looks like Tattoo the midget from fantasy island.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Midgets should be banned.

[BudBro 183]

The Right to Bear Arms

 

Arms = Weaponary

 

Are you saying that citizens should have the right to purchase, house and use ALL weaponary availbable in 2012. Any arms? rocket launchers, AK-47's, grenades, ect. ?

 

Because if you don't then we've already drawn a line; a line that differenciates between common sense acceptable weaponary to be owned by citizens and weaponary that shouldn't.

 

For most, the question is where exactly should that line be drawn.

 

For some they either want no line (BLS) or they want the line just after slingshot (hippies).

the right to "bear"...which means own and carry on your person, and in equal size and lethality as the govt. so, if the govt carries ar-15s, we have the right to own and carry ar-15s. if the army carries around rocket lauchers, which we know they do because they gave a bunch of them to al qaeda to shoot up our people in benghazi, then we should be able to procure and carry them as well. one would need funding for a private army, but the 2nd amendment should provide the legal wherewithal to procure equipment of equal proportion.

 

we can't defend ourselves against an oppressive govt if they have all the guns and tanks and planes and we have daisy bb guns. that's in defiance of the constitution.

 

the line should be drawn that the line is already drawn. if you've shown no responsibility to own a weapon, then you are illegal. if you qualify, there is no line. it doesn't make it right to kill people randomly with a gun you own legally. we also have rules about killing people.

[Herbivore 1,151]

the right to "bear"...which means own and carry on your person, and in equal size and lethality as the govt. so, if the govt carries ar-15s, we have the right to own and carry ar-15s. if the army carries around rocket lauchers, which we know they do because they gave a bunch of them to al qaeda to shoot up our people in benghazi, then we should be able to procure and carry them as well. one would need funding for a private army, but the 2nd amendment should provide the legal wherewithal to procure equipment of equal proportion.

 

we can't defend ourselves against an oppressive govt if they have all the guns and tanks and planes and we have daisy bb guns. that's in defiance of the constitution.

 

the line should be drawn that the line is already drawn. if you've shown no responsibility to own a weapon, then you are illegal. if you qualify, there is no line. it doesn't make it right to kill people randomly with a gun you own legally. we also have rules about killing people.

 

Do you think drugs and prostitution should be legal?

[RLLD 4,275]

Do you think drugs and prostitution should be legal?

 

Only when used together....

[drobeski 3,061]

Do you think drugs and prostitution should be legal?

Are they in the constitution ?

[5-Points 3,692]

Shooter Identified:

 

22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts, a resident of southeast Portland Linkage with photo

victims who died in Tuesday's attack at the Clackamas Town Center mall were identified as 54-year-old Cindy Ann Yule

I wonder if she'll be cremated.

[BudBro 183]

Do you think drugs and prostitution should be legal?

there isn't a correlation. drugs and prostitution weren't designed to keep a govt in check.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I think the better question is, why are people compelled to do this type of thing?

 

These mass shootings seem to be coming commonplace, whereas you never used to see it. Remember those quaint old days when something like the Columbine shooting was truly shocking?

 

Guns were just as readily available back then but you didn't see these kinds of shootings aimed at killing as many random people as possible.

 

My theory is that hyper-realistic violent video games are to blame-call of duty and so forth. I think people get desensitized to violence and stop seeing other people as real living organism - we're just bodies waiting to be shot to up their kill count. Obviously these folks are nutso to start with, so I'm not saying video games drive them to do violent things. But I do think they increase greatly the expected level of violence and make it much easier to envision actually carrying out these kinds of acts.

 

Thoughts? I'm not necessarily advocating that violent video games be banned, just suggesting that maybe we're missing the real culprit in these particular kinds of shootings.

[KSB2424 3,153]

Its a numbers game. 1 out of every 100,000 people are going to be a violent loony tunes. Every time our countires population grows another 100k there is one more lunatic out there. Math.

[TheBlade 3]

I think the better question is, why are people compelled to do this type of thing?

 

These mass shootings seem to be coming commonplace, whereas you never used to see it. Remember those quaint old days when something like the Columbine shooting was truly shocking?

 

Guns were just as readily available back then but you didn't see these kinds of shootings aimed at killing as many random people as possible.

 

My theory is that hyper-realistic violent video games are to blame-call of duty and so forth. I think people get desensitized to violence and stop seeing other people as real living organism - we're just bodies waiting to be shot to up their kill count. Obviously these folks are nutso to start with, so I'm not saying video games drive them to do violent things. But I do think they increase greatly the expected level of violence and make it much easier to envision actually carrying out these kinds of acts.

 

Thoughts? I'm not necessarily advocating that violent video games be banned, just suggesting that maybe we're missing the real culprit in these particular kinds of shootings.

This is one area that I agree with you 100% on.

[posty 2,781]

"If the gunman didn't possess a gun, he and the two killed would be alive today." --Bob Costas

[5-Points 3,692]

I think the better question is, why are people compelled to do this type of thing?

 

These mass shootings seem to be coming commonplace, whereas you never used to see it. Remember those quaint old days when something like the Columbine shooting was truly shocking?

 

Guns were just as readily available back then but you didn't see these kinds of shootings aimed at killing as many random people as possible.

 

My theory is that hyper-realistic violent video games are to blame-call of duty and so forth. I think people get desensitized to violence and stop seeing other people as real living organism - we're just bodies waiting to be shot to up their kill count. Obviously these folks are nutso to start with, so I'm not saying video games drive them to do violent things. But I do think they increase greatly the expected level of violence and make it much easier to envision actually carrying out these kinds of acts.

 

Thoughts? I'm not necessarily advocating that violent video games be banned, just suggesting that maybe we're missing the real culprit in these particular kinds of shootings.

I think it has more to do with the media sensationalizing these events. Some nobody from nowhere gets disgruntled and decides he's going to make a name for himself. I realize that these events are newsworthy but if they just stopped naming these dooshes and plastering their picture all over the place I think we'd see a decrease in the number of occurences. Take away their 15 minutes and they go away.

 

 

Also, there's a reason why certain video games have age restrictions. So rather than blame the game, I think it's more appropriate to blame the parents that buy these games for their underage kids.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

This is one area that I agree with you 100% on.

 

It was bound to happen someday

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I think it has more to do with the media sensationalizing these events. Some nobody from nowhere gets disgruntled and decides he's going to make a name for himself. I realize that these events are newsworthy but if they just stopped naming these dooshes and plastering their picture all over the place I think we'd see a decrease in the number of occurences. Take away their 15 minutes and they go away.

 

 

Also, there's a reason why certain video games have age restrictions. So rather than blame the game, I think it's more appropriate to blame the parents that buy these games for their underage kids.

 

I think the news reports do enhance the so-called culture of violence by reporting on the huge body counts and violent methods employed. I'm not so sure reporting on the identities is a driving force though. I could be wrong, but I don't get the sense that these people do this kind of thing specifically for recognition. Anyways, the problem is, what is the news supposed to do? Not report these incidents at all? Give no details?

 

I don't think the age restrictions accomplish anything. Certainly it's worse if kids are playing these games at a super young age, but extremely violent video games support a culture of violence whether people under 15 play these games or not.

[Casual Observer 597]

I think the better question is, why are people compelled to do this type of thing?

 

These mass shootings seem to be coming commonplace, whereas you never used to see it. Remember those quaint old days when something like the Columbine shooting was truly shocking?

 

Guns were just as readily available back then but you didn't see these kinds of shootings aimed at killing as many random people as possible.

 

My theory is that hyper-realistic violent video games are to blame-call of duty and so forth. I think people get desensitized to violence and stop seeing other people as real living organism - we're just bodies waiting to be shot to up their kill count. Obviously these folks are nutso to start with, so I'm not saying video games drive them to do violent things. But I do think they increase greatly the expected level of violence and make it much easier to envision actually carrying out these kinds of acts.

 

Thoughts? I'm not necessarily advocating that violent video games be banned, just suggesting that maybe we're missing the real culprit in these particular kinds of shootings.

 

Fake lawyer, amateur psychologist, ...

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Fake lawyer, amateur psychologist, ...

 

Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

[TheBlade 3]

It was bound to happen someday

[phillybear 366]

Do you think drugs and prostitution should be legal?

 

You got a pen? I want to sign on the dotted line. :hyper:

[5-Points 3,692]

I think the news reports do enhance the so-called culture of violence by reporting on the huge body counts and violent methods employed. I'm not so sure reporting on the identities is a driving force though. I could be wrong, but I don't get the sense that these people do this kind of thing specifically for recognition. Anyways, the problem is, what is the news supposed to do? Not report these incidents at all? Give no details?

 

I don't think the age restrictions accomplish anything. Certainly it's worse if kids are playing these games at a super young age, but extremely violent video games support a culture of violence whether people under 15 play these games or not.

I don't think people do these things solely for recognition but I do think it's a major component. Obviously they have a lot of pent-up anger over something and feel the need to lash out. I just think that the idea that they will be "remembered" for what they do plays a big part in how they decide to lash out. The media has a responsibility to report such occurences but they could simply refuse to give the name(s) of the those responsible. Once they figure out that nobody will ever know who did it, I think the whole scenario would become less appealing.

 

As for age restrictions, 99.9% of people that play violent video games will probably never entertain the thought of committing such despicable acts whether they're underage or not. However, when you start playing these kinds of games at 7 or 8 instead of 17 or 18, I think there is a greater risk of becoming desensitized to the violence and acting out in a way that no sane person would think acceptable.

[edjr 6,732]

Portland has a concealed carry law. Why didn't someone stop this guy?

 

[edjr 6,732]

"If the gunman didn't possess a gun, he and the two killed would be alive today." --Bob Costas

 

Fact not opinion

[edjr 6,732]

I think it has more to do with the media sensationalizing these events.

 

I agree with this 100%.

 

If the media would stop showing these crimes for an entire 24 hour cycle and make these wackos infamous, these crimes would stop very quickly.

[drobeski 3,061]

Fact not opinion

Chicago ? Fact not opinion.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Fact not opinion

Yep.

\

No way a 250lb NFL player could figure out how to kill a 22 year old girl without a gun.

[drobeski 3,061]

So the kids used a stolen gun. Thats unfockingpossible, stealing guns is illegal everywhere.

[Casual Observer 597]

Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

 

Only what I've posted (which was to say stop talking out of yer arse).

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So the kids used a stolen gun. Thats unfockingpossible, stealing guns is illegal everywhere.

Stealing should be banned.

[Reality 3,121]

Fact not opinion

 

 

I've read none of this thread up to this point but, I'm going to assume this is the dumbest thing posted in it.

[GobbleDog 1,006]

Too bad they couldn't take him alive. He deserved death, but I think it's good for victims and society in general to have somebody to put on trial and hang the blame.

[wiffleball 4,793]

"We have been able to identify the shooter over this last night," Roberts said. "I believe, at least from the information that's been provided to me at this point in time, it really was a killing of total strangers. To my knowledge at this point in time he was really trying, I think, to kill as many people as possible."

 

Yeah, good for you, Sheriff Roscoe. Focking Heller Keller could have racked up more than two fatalities 3 total shots with a semi-automatic in perhaps one of the most target-rich environments imaginable.

 

"Yay Guns?" WTF? The dude killed himself - AFTER his "Yay gun" jammed once before. IT's not like Santa pulled out his Glock and "prevented an tragedy of untold proportions".

 

Geebus MotherFocking Christo, GoColts could have done more damage with an axe in the same period of time - much less a GD semi-automatic weapon. Let's give the focking little turd-tard a second per round - that's 90 casualties minimum.

 

 

In news that DIDN'T get reported. At LEAST that many people died in the same time period in Chicago, DC, Nola, Houston, Detroit, Memphis and NYC respectively.

 

...But yeah, THIS is a HUGE story!!

[GobbleDog 1,006]

At LEAST that many people died in the same time period in Chicago, DC, Nola, Houston, Detroit, Memphis and NYC respectively.

 

...But yeah, THIS is a HUGE story!!

Mass shootings in shopping malls don't happen everyday, unlike gangster murders in Chicago, DC, Nola, Houston, Detroit, Memphis and NYC.

 

yeah, I'd call it a huge story.

[NorthernVike 2,088]

More people are killed by abortions than guns every year in this country you focking moron.

 

 

 

:happy fathers day:

[jerryskids 6,960]

I think the better question is, why are people compelled to do this type of thing?

 

These mass shootings seem to be coming commonplace, whereas you never used to see it. Remember those quaint old days when something like the Columbine shooting was truly shocking?

 

Guns were just as readily available back then but you didn't see these kinds of shootings aimed at killing as many random people as possible.

 

My theory is that hyper-realistic violent video games are to blame-call of duty and so forth. I think people get desensitized to violence and stop seeing other people as real living organism - we're just bodies waiting to be shot to up their kill count. Obviously these folks are nutso to start with, so I'm not saying video games drive them to do violent things. But I do think they increase greatly the expected level of violence and make it much easier to envision actually carrying out these kinds of acts.

 

Thoughts? I'm not necessarily advocating that violent video games be banned, just suggesting that maybe we're missing the real culprit in these particular kinds of shootings.

There is some validity to this, but I think the larger issue is: we've created a generation of young people who don't know how to deal with stress/failure. Real life doesn't give everyone a participation trophy, and these kids don't know how to deal with it.

[TheBlade 3]

More people are killed by abortions than guns every year in this country you focking moron.

 

 

 

:happy fathers day:

Thread ovah.

[wiffleball 4,793]

More people are killed by abortions than guns every year in this country you focking moron.

 

 

 

:happy fathers day:

 

Zygotes and Blastocysts - aint people.

[BLS 314]

I think the better question is, why are people compelled to do this type of thing?

 

These mass shootings seem to be coming commonplace, whereas you never used to see it. Remember those quaint old days when something like the Columbine shooting was truly shocking?

 

Guns were just as readily available back then but you didn't see these kinds of shootings aimed at killing as many random people as possible.

 

My theory is that hyper-realistic violent video games are to blame-call of duty and so forth. I think people get desensitized to violence and stop seeing other people as real living organism - we're just bodies waiting to be shot to up their kill count. Obviously these folks are nutso to start with, so I'm not saying video games drive them to do violent things. But I do think they increase greatly the expected level of violence and make it much easier to envision actually carrying out these kinds of acts.

 

Thoughts? I'm not necessarily advocating that violent video games be banned, just suggesting that maybe we're missing the real culprit in these particular kinds of shootings.

 

 

 

 

Please....hear me out on this, because I truly believe this is a major factor, but I know it will sound obscene at first. Just bear with me.

 

 

 

I believe the issue is not guns or accessibility to them (shocking, I know). The means to kill others will ALWAYS be available. Someone could create a pipe bomb from items obtained at Ace Hardware and would do CONSIDERABLY more damage with a higher body count than any gunman. That's been proven over and over. So banning the weapon isn't the answer; although I understand why some people have that reaction.

 

I believe the the problem stems from the fact that for the last 20-30 years kids haven't had parents around to discipline them. Back when I was a kid, I had my mother, grandmother and grandfather around to help discipline and guide me to not make bad choices, and to punish me when I DID make bad choices. That guidance is ESSENTIAL in the molding of one's future IMO.

 

Look at teachers of the 60's, 70's and 80's. They were allowed to discipline students who got out line. My Dad used to have a nun that would beat his knuckles with a ruler if he got out of line. (please...just hear me out)

 

Nowadays you cannot TOUCH a child. Nowadays, both parents HAVE to work to make ends meet (for most families).

Nowadays, most people live in a ridiculous amount of debt because credit and the purchase of items we should not afford is made available by easy credit (even college kids with no real work history are basically GIVEN credit cards).

 

You couple the fact that they have no one home to teach and guide, the inability of teachers to intervene due to fear of repercussions, massive debt by families in an effort to 'keep up with the Jones'' and now a environment that allows people in this country to believe that life is 'fair' and that you have a 'right' to equality; and it doesn't really take much to figure out why kids snap.

 

 

For those of you over 40, ask yourself this: Did my parents punish me if I didn't do my homework or chores? Was my Mom home when I got home from school (and not at work)? Did my teachers fear any sort of punishment towards me if I acted stupidly in school? Was I taught that no matter what, I DESERVED the same as everyone else?

 

 

 

I truly believe that the problem that Worms is getting to (whether we agree or not on the causation) is the REAL issue. WHY are they doing it.

 

I've only offered my opinions on why.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

There is some validity to this, but I think the larger issue is: we've created a generation of young people who don't know how to deal with stress/failure. Real life doesn't give everyone a participation trophy, and these kids don't know how to deal with it.

 

I think you're right to a degree, but it's not just dealing with failure. It goes beyond that. I'm talking about when some guy feels disrespected at a bar so he pulls out a gun and starts shooting. Back in the day that would have been a fistfight at most. Now it's murder. Why? People can't seem to handle the concept of taking a well-deserved punch, shaking it off, and moving on.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Please....hear me out on this, because I truly believe this is a major factor, but I know it will sound obscene at first. Just bear with me.

 

 

 

I believe the issue is not guns or accessibility to them (shocking, I know). The means to kill others will ALWAYS be available. Someone could create a pipe bomb from items obtained at Ace Hardware and would do CONSIDERABLY more damage with a higher body count than any gunman. That's been proven over and over. So banning the weapon isn't the answer; although I understand why some people have that reaction.

 

I believe the the problem stems from the fact that for the last 20-30 years kids haven't had parents around to discipline them. Back when I was a kid, I had my mother, grandmother and grandfather around to help discipline and guide me to not make bad choices, and to punish me when I DID make bad choices. That guidance is ESSENTIAL in the molding of one's future IMO.

 

Look at teachers of the 60's, 70's and 80's. They were allowed to discipline students who got out line. My Dad used to have a nun that would beat his knuckles with a ruler if he got out of line. (please...just hear me out)

 

Nowadays you cannot TOUCH a child. Nowadays, both parents HAVE to work to make ends meet (for most families).

Nowadays, most people live in a ridiculous amount of debt because credit and the purchase of items we should not afford is made available by easy credit (even college kids with no real work history are basically GIVEN credit cards).

 

You couple the fact that they have no one home to teach and guide, the inability of teachers to intervene due to fear of repercussions, massive debt by families in an effort to 'keep up with the Jones'' and now a environment that allows people in this country to believe that life is 'fair' and that you have a 'right' to equality; and it doesn't really take much to figure out why kids snap.

 

 

For those of you over 40, ask yourself this: Did my parents punish me if I didn't do my homework or chores? Was my Mom home when I got home from school (and not at work)? Did my teachers fear any sort of punishment towards me if I acted stupidly in school? Was I taught that no matter what, I DESERVED the same as everyone else?

 

 

 

I truly believe that the problem that Worms is getting to (whether we agree or not on the causation) is the REAL issue. WHY are they doing it.

 

I've only offered my opinions on why.

 

Interesting theory. I'm not sure I see the link between lack of discipline and mass killings though. I could understand if these people somehow thought they were going to get away with what they do, but clearly most of them don't expect to since the whole thing often ends with them turning the gun on themselves.

[cbfalcon 827]

I was just about to post this.

 

36 murders in November.

 

Always a funny argument.

 

Also, since we've outlawed rapes yet rape still happen, we shouldn't even bother trying to do what's right. After all, it may not be 100% effective.