German School Shooting Kills 15

[growled]

Very sad. My thoughts go out to the families involved.

 

[jpeyton]

nm

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: NeoV
the flow of guns into the hands of people that shouldn't have them goes on and on

I think that gets to the core of it - putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple. Assuming there are such things as good and bad people of course.

And keeping guns out of the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' people.

So you can let the 'bad' people run amok or you can let the 'good' people fight back, since they do greatly outnumber the 'bad' people.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Jesus, this is horrible. School shooting, then crazy GTA style car chase and all...

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: NeoV
the flow of guns into the hands of people that shouldn't have them goes on and on

I think that gets to the core of it - putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple. Assuming there are such things as good and bad people of course.

And keeping guns out of the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' people.

So you can let the 'bad' people run amok or you can let the 'good' people fight back, since they do greatly outnumber the 'bad' people.

If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: NeoV
the flow of guns into the hands of people that shouldn't have them goes on and on

I think that gets to the core of it - putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple. Assuming there are such things as good and bad people of course.

And keeping guns out of the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' people.

So you can let the 'bad' people run amok or you can let the 'good' people fight back, since they do greatly outnumber the 'bad' people.

If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

Yes it was obviously all his Dad's fault. We better try him for something.

 

[palehorse]

very sad.

Originally posted by: NeoV
...but nothing changes, the flow of guns into the hands of people that shouldn't have them goes on and on.

Which wouldn't change one damn bit, even if you were able to install some of the draconian fascist gun laws you fantasize about... On the other hand, what might help is if you figured out a way to properly enforce the laws we already have!

imagine that.

Originally posted by: Atheus
putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple.

...neither is taking all of the guns away from the "good" people.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Atheus
putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple.

...neither is taking all of the guns away from the "good" people.

I'm pretty sure nobody suggested that. Stricter controls on guns overall, however, could have helped in this situation. There is no denying that the kid should not have had access to the weapons. You can argue incidents like this are an acceptable price to pay for your own freedoms but you can't claim the law could not have helped in this particular situation.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Atheus
putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple.

...neither is taking all of the guns away from the "good" people.

I'm pretty sure nobody suggested that. Stricter controls on guns overall, however, could have helped in this situation. There is no denying that the kid should not have had access to the weapons. You can argue incidents like this are an acceptable price to pay for your own freedoms but you can't claim the law could not have helped in this particular situation.

Well that's a pretty generic statement... what's the point?

We can ban swimming pools and such a law would certainly help minimize child drownings. Just because a law would help a particular situation means nothing without context. Things are not that simple.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Atheus
putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple.

...neither is taking all of the guns away from the "good" people.

I'm pretty sure nobody suggested that. Stricter controls on guns overall, however, could have helped in this situation. There is no denying that the kid should not have had access to the weapons. You can argue incidents like this are an acceptable price to pay for your own freedoms but you can't claim the law could not have helped in this particular situation.

1. Germany already has draconian control over their guns and ammunition. So, exactly what type of "stricter controls" are you suggesting?!

2. If someone steals MY car and uses it to run down 15 people, would your response be to implement new laws that govern MY ownership of a car?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

If the kid had used 14 guns in his assault, then you might have had a valid point.

But, he didn't, and you don't.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: NeoV
the flow of guns into the hands of people that shouldn't have them goes on and on

I think that gets to the core of it - putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple. Assuming there are such things as good and bad people of course.

And keeping guns out of the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' people.

So you can let the 'bad' people run amok or you can let the 'good' people fight back, since they do greatly outnumber the 'bad' people.

If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

Yes it was obviously all his Dad's fault. We better try him for something.

You think this kid killed all those people with his father's gun and didn't want to send him a message? You don't wonder if Dad was a lot more interested in his guns than he was his kid?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Atheus
putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple.

...neither is taking all of the guns away from the "good" people.

I'm pretty sure nobody suggested that. Stricter controls on guns overall, however, could have helped in this situation. There is no denying that the kid should not have had access to the weapons. You can argue incidents like this are an acceptable price to pay for your own freedoms but you can't claim the law could not have helped in this particular situation.

1. Germany already has draconian control over their guns and ammunition. So, exactly what type of "stricter controls" are you suggesting?!

It only seems like they have draconian controls to you because you're a nutter. To most people they have average to loose gun control - they even have concealed and non-concealed public carry permits.

Perhaps there could be a law that anyone who lives with other people (especially kids) who do not themselves have a firearms licence be required to keep his firearms either a: locked up securely or b: actually on his person (bedside table while asleep counts). Then the kid would have had a very hard time getting access. As I said you may not agree with these measures but you cannot argue they could have helped in this particlar situation.

2. If someone steals MY car and uses it to run down 15 people, would your response be to implement new laws that govern MY ownership of a car?

Yea man, and what if I stole your drink, and splashed it in your face, would you require licences to carry drinks? :laugh: No because guns are more dangerous than cars are more dangerous than soft drinks.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: kmmatney
If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

If the kid had used 14 guns in his assault, then you might have had a valid point.

So I break into a bank holding £14,000,000 but I only steal £1,000,000 and, what, that doesn't count because it's only 1/14? Is that some kind of numerology thing?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: kmmatney
If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

If the kid had used 14 guns in his assault, then you might have had a valid point.

So I break into a bank holding £14,000,000 but I only steal £1,000,000 and, what, that doesn't count because it's only 1/14? Is that some kind of numerology thing?

By that measure, the kid was also 14 times more likely to find a deadly weapon to use in his household.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: NeoV
the flow of guns into the hands of people that shouldn't have them goes on and on

I think that gets to the core of it - putting more guns in the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' poeple. Assuming there are such things as good and bad people of course.

And keeping guns out of the hands of 'good' people is never going to stop them getting into the hands of 'bad' people.

So you can let the 'bad' people run amok or you can let the 'good' people fight back, since they do greatly outnumber the 'bad' people.

If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

Yes it was obviously all his Dad's fault. We better try him for something.

You think this kid killed all those people with his father's gun and didn't want to send him a message? You don't wonder if Dad was a lot more interested in his guns than he was his kid?

Who knows? If all he wanted to do was send his father a message he could have shot himself in the basement, so it goes deeper then just that.

From what I've read it seems the father and son were both members of a hunting club, so maybe that was Dad's way of trying to spend what he considered to be "quality time" with his son??

I never heard anything about a suicide note so maybe the kid never planned on killing himself? The suicide might well have been just a reaction to the guilt he felt after what he realized what he did.

 

[Moonbeam]

Who knows? Your name should tell you. When you don't know you don't automatically eliminate the father. Keep an open mind. And I suggest the more you know yourself, what you actually really feel, the more you will also know everybody. Do you see how knowing how a program is written allows you to predict how things work out better than speculating on superficial data?

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: kmmatney
If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

If the kid had used 14 guns in his assault, then you might have had a valid point.

So I break into a bank holding £14,000,000 but I only steal £1,000,000 and, what, that doesn't count because it's only 1/14? Is that some kind of numerology thing?

No, you totally missed the point. Only one gun was required. The number of guns his dad owned was irrelevant. If his dad had only owned a single gun, this could still have happened exactly as it did.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: kmmatney
If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

If the kid had used 14 guns in his assault, then you might have had a valid point.

So I break into a bank holding £14,000,000 but I only steal £1,000,000 and, what, that doesn't count because it's only 1/14? Is that some kind of numerology thing?

fail.

His entire point was based on the quantity of guns available to the shooter, which is irrelevant given the fact that the kid only used one. IOW, he tried to equate the high number of guns to their accessibility and the likelihood of this event taking place, which is a falsehood.

So he, and now you, fail.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: kmmatney
If the German guys dad wasn't so much of a gun nut (14 guns in the house) then the shooter wouldn't have gotten a hold of them.

If the kid had used 14 guns in his assault, then you might have had a valid point.

So I break into a bank holding £14,000,000 but I only steal £1,000,000 and, what, that doesn't count because it's only 1/14? Is that some kind of numerology thing?

fail.

His entire point was based on the quantity of guns available to the shooter, which is irrelevant given the fact that the kid only used one. IOW, he tried to equate the high number of guns to their accessibility and the likelihood of this event taking place, which is a falsehood.

So he, and now you, fail.

No no no no no. You fail to take in the psychological implications of guns in the psyche of a teen in a house with 14 guns in it. A house with 14 guns is a house in which guns likely take up a large psychic place. In a house with 14 guns neither a baseball bat, ones fists, a butcher knife, or anything else but a gun is the established fantasy tool of self protection and defense, or means of revenge. Those who live by the sword die by the sword for a reason other than that swords are sharp and pointed. Try go get some sort of rational gestalt of the situation, OK. Linear thinking and reasoning ain't gonna get you nowhere.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: NeoV
"There have been many, discussed several times on this forum alone, backed by extensive studies.

diversity vs homogeneity, overall area, social service availability, law enforcement models, media strictures, civil liberty differences, etc. There's at least 10-20 fairly compelling explanations that when taken altogether very likely account for a majority of international differences.

It's the reason why many countries with equal or greater firearm saturation have lower crime/accidents than the us, while other countries with strict controls have greater suicides or crimes than the us...the existence of weapons isn't particularly relevant. Crime is a SES symptom. Suicide is a cultural indicator. etc."

Nice cop out. Put your head in the sand, nothing to see here, just another day, another act of senseless gun violence - remember, he would have just stabbed everyone if guns weren't around....Your 'extensive studies' are all backed by NRA money, and are of course never going to come to the conclusion that the readily available supply of guns leads to more violence and gun-related crimes - that of course would just be a silly conclusion to come to.....

What is really, really sad in all of this - other than the horrific act and those affected by it - is that the last time this happened, Germans were so upset about it that they changed the legal age of gun ownership.

This sort of thing happens here in the US? Page 4 news, non-story after a few days, unless we have videotape of it, then we replay it over and over on every piece of crap talk/news show on TV - but nothing changes, the flow of guns into the hands of people that shouldn't have them goes on and on.

And for the record, I'm not for banning guns in this country - but it's FAR too easy to get one, it's far too easy for people that shouldn't be allowed to get them to do so, and the ridiculous amount of money spent by the NRA - raised by the morons who really think that anyone in the US government is dumb enough to try and take guns away from everyone - keeps any type of meaningful gun control laws from even being discussed.

Bullshit asshole. Those studies are done by colleges (largely liberal), law enforcement agencies, and..

AND YOU SON OF A BITCH, the single largest review of all gun control studies was done by the National Academy of Sciences (liberal central) and funded directly by the Clintons (anti-gun central) with the EXPLICIT GOAL of proving that guns were a danger and control measures were effective, and they reached the conclusion that they could not say gun control has EVER WORKED in a meaningful way, and that all related issues are more likely due to SES, cultural, etc.

I am sick to god damn death of ignorant fucktards who haven't ever taken the time to read the signers on research papers or the funding agency thereof and instead just try to blame EVERYTHING on partisanship and biased fucking sources!!!!!!


AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who knows? Your name should tell you. When you don't know you don't automatically eliminate the father. Keep an open mind. And I suggest the more you know yourself, what you actually really feel, the more you will also know everybody. Do you see how knowing how a program is written allows you to predict how things work out better than speculating on superficial data?

Sorry, but I have to disagree in this case.

The father had 14 guns in the house and all of them were kept under lock and key except this one that he kept in the bedroom for self defense. I find that reasonable. Unless someone can show that they knew this kid had violent tendencies, serious mental health problems, etc. I don't see how anyone could lay the blame on the father??

That's going to be hard to show because if the parents did think their son had a serious problem they would have locked the gun up for their own safety.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who knows? Your name should tell you. When you don't know you don't automatically eliminate the father. Keep an open mind. And I suggest the more you know yourself, what you actually really feel, the more you will also know everybody. Do you see how knowing how a program is written allows you to predict how things work out better than speculating on superficial data?

Sorry, but I have to disagree in this case.

The father had 14 guns in the house and all of them were kept under lock and key except this one that he kept in the bedroom for self defense. I find that reasonable. Unless someone can show that they knew this kid had violent tendencies, serious mental health problems, etc. I don't see how anyone could lay the blame on the father??

That's going to be hard to show because if the parents did think their son had a serious problem they would have locked the gun up for their own safety.

Your case makes reasonable sense to me, but it assumes I can reason to knowledge. If reason can lead to knowledge then somebodyknows. But all the benefits of humility accrue to those who know they don't know anything, no?

I should thing that similar reasonableness would lead to a suspicion that a German father with 14 guns is off the normalcy charts and could be suspect too. But I don'tknow.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who knows? Your name should tell you. When you don't know you don't automatically eliminate the father. Keep an open mind. And I suggest the more you know yourself, what you actually really feel, the more you will also know everybody. Do you see how knowing how a program is written allows you to predict how things work out better than speculating on superficial data?

Sorry, but I have to disagree in this case.

The father had 14 guns in the house and all of them were kept under lock and key except this one that he kept in the bedroom for self defense. I find that reasonable. Unless someone can show that they knew this kid had violent tendencies, serious mental health problems, etc. I don't see how anyone could lay the blame on the father??

That's going to be hard to show because if the parents did think their son had a serious problem they would have locked the gun up for their own safety.

Your case makes reasonable sense to me, but it assumes I can reason to knowledge. If reason can lead to knowledge then somebodyknows. But all the benefits of humility accrue to those who know they don't know anything, no?

I should thing that similar reasonableness would lead to a suspicion that a German father with 14 guns is off the normalcy charts and could be suspect too. But I don'tknow.

Owning 14 guns may be off some people's "normalcy chart", but it certainly isn't off mine.... and I'm sure there are many others who feel that way as well.

I personally have a deer rifle, a varmit rifle, a .22, and a shotgun. My wife hunts so she has the same, as does my son. That's 12 guns right there. I also own 2 pistols, one for protection and one for practice/fun. Then I have a small collection of older rifles/army rifles I bought as "investments" that I can hold and occasionally shoot.

I have even more guns then that because I like having "the right tool for the job", but being a reasonable person you get the point.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Bullshit asshole. Those studies are done by colleges (largely liberal), law enforcement agencies, and..

AND YOU SON OF A BITCH, the single largest review of all gun control studies was done by the National Academy of Sciences (liberal central) and funded directly by the Clintons (anti-gun central) with the EXPLICIT GOAL of proving that guns were a danger and control measures were effective, and they reached the conclusion that they could not say gun control has EVER WORKED in a meaningful way, and that all related issues are more likely due to SES, cultural, etc.

I am sick to god damn death of ignorant fucktards who haven't ever taken the time to read the signers on research papers or the funding agency thereof and instead just try to blame EVERYTHING on partisanship and biased fucking sources!!!!!!


AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This, ladies and gentlmen, is the calm and progressive voice of the gun lobby.