It's a problem at every university across the country, not just Ohio. And mace and a 9mm are not the solution. Most rapes are not random attacks on a woman when she is walking home from a party. They are significant others, friends, colleagues, and other people they trust. And men can be, and are, raped too.

Not to discount these reports at all, but I wonder if the #MeToo movement and the public encouragement to step up and report these offenses is providing a different feeling that this crime is occurring more than before at OU.

It very well may be.

But it may also be the result of the bravery of victims for stepping forward whereas, in the past, at any campus or workplace, this might not have been reported.

I don't really follow this issue, so I don't know the answers here, but while I appreciate your answer, it leads me to another question. Were those guards heavily armed? For example, were they wearing bulletproof vests, or were they just wearing a uniform, and armed with a pistol?

I suspect none were wearing bullet-proof vests and were armed with pistols. I know that to be the case at Pulse, but am unsure about the Navy Yard and Columbine examples and haven't been able to confirm on way or another with Google.

Crime has generally fallen everywhere over the last several decades. I'd say there are also many less rapes than there were in the past, but victims are more likely to report them. About 1 in 5 women have been raped and many more have experienced some form of sexual violence. Those are low-end numbers, considering not every woman is willing to talk about such a traumatic experience.

Oh my.

I personally believe we can attribute a great deal of society's hatred, bigotry and violence to religion. This has been true throughout history. Whose "absolute right" is right?

I would suggest that's something to examine, and perhaps learn from. Perhaps they have some other cultural mechanisms for helping to assure that the moral codes that individuals adopt are within acceptable bounds. I do think that taking away guns will not solve the problem, as people who wish to commit mass murder will find other ways. Reducing the number of guns, however, will probably significantly reduce the suicide rate, since most of those are committed with guns, and will also obviously decrease the rate of deaths by accidental discharge.

Germany does not have state run media, so I'm not sure I follow.

Right, lots of open discourse and debate in the public media. lol

Its horrible anytime someone decides to take an innocent life. The Cincinnati tragedy continues to dominate the news as it should. Fortunately there were several very brave armed officers on the scene to quickly put an end to it and prevent an even worse tragedy.

A quick search on machete deaths and you will find more of these type murders that total more than all the recent school shootings combeined. They are reported; but neglected from a large portion of the national media so you may not even be aware they continue to happen. Below is a small collection from the past year. A quick read and you will see most did not involve a gun.

https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=MS+13+Gang+Deaths+Usa&...

We had a mass (multiple innocent people) machete attack at a restaurant in Columbus along with another vehicle attempt at OSU similar to the one in NYC. Fortunately a brave armed officer ended both Ohio incidents or they would have been much worse.

If you read the linked articles you will see most of those murders across multiple states were teenage kids. See how many dead teenagers you can count in the past year. (12 months) You will find that total higher than number of murdered school shooting victims in the last (12 months). Which was the point.

Both are bad, both result in dead school kids. One gets a lot of press. The largest number seems to be news to you. Read the articles, total the numbers and then you will know too!

This is called "cherry picking statistics to support a narrative." And it's not even a narrative that makes the slightest bit of sense given the conversation here.

School shootings get attention because they are representative of an epidemic of gun violence. Knife attacks get less attention because they. . .are not. They represent a small percentage of homicides nationwide.

And I say this as somebody who thinks the media focuses far too much on school shootings and far too little on gun violence in general.

But the idea that the media should focus as much attention on machete attacks as they do on gun violence -- or even on school shootings -- is silly. And the statistics I presented illustrate why. Gun violence in our country is a serious public health issue. Machete attacks are a statistically insignificant percentage of murders.

But, regardless, I still don't understand your point. This has been a conversation about whether or not armed guards/police prevent mass shootings. And for some reason you chimed in to say "Yeah, but what the media doesn't tell you is that far, far fewer people are killed by immigrants with machetes."

Cool.

1. You linked to a Bing search for "MS-13 Gang Deaths" -- MS-13 is a gang composed almost primarily of immigrants. Or as you describe it, "now US based gang." Explain my comprehension issues?

2. You didn't simply state anything. You stated, in a very confusing, jumbled way that you think "state run media" in other countries don't report reality, and now seem to be implying by saying "who knows how often" that the data from other countries isn't reliable. We know how often mass killings happen in other western countries; there's ample data available. Others have already provided data illustrating that. It's far less than in the United States. If you care to refute that, it's on you to provide data to that end.

3. Okay.

4. You completely moved the goalposts and are comparing apples to oranges. In a conversation about mass shootings at large, you came in to compare deaths perpetrated by a gang using knives to a subset of the deaths from a mass shooting over an arbitrary period of time because otherwise, the data doesn't remotely support the conclusion you've drawn.

There is a very clear correlation between gun ownership and deaths from gun violence. Data to illustrate that's been presented in this thread. People have suggested -- including yourself -- that reducing gun ownership would merely lead to violence by other means, but nobody has been able to show any examples of that happening. I've illustrated, with actual data, how far fewer people are killed with knives and bombs by using examples relevant to the discussion about mass killings.

You've just shown how a gang has been responsible for murders. It's not a relevant comparison in any way. They were not mass killings and do not meet the definition that was previously discussed as to what constituted a mass killing. You are comparing apples to a small subset of oranges, because you have an opinion you really want to be right.

Your point -- that evil people find away -- is nihilistic garbage that isn't supported by any data, regardless of how hard you try and manipulate it. Preach all you want about the tragedy of lost life and the bravery of the good people who put their lives on the line to protect us, but you're arguing in favor of doing nothing. And your argument in favor of doing nothing is flimsy and transparent.

You're using 0.002% of murders in the US illustrate that "evil people will always find a way", even though those 0.002% of murders represent a completely different type of crime that's not in any way comparable to the crimes being discussed in this thread. I'd call it intellectually dishonest if I thought you were trying to be intellectual, but you're not. That would imply an openness to ideas.

There will always be evil people who try and do evil things. Access to guns makes perpetrating their evil far, far easier and far more efficient. There's no way to look at the data and argue otherwise.