Nutter with gun massacres school children in Germany

[Krip 2]

sorry to hear about the senseless loss of life in your country.

IMO using this tragedy to argue the merits of gun control on a international scale is pointless and in poor taste. Or in plain english BS but I wouldn't expect anything less from SC.

One Jump Wonder

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Odd... aren't you the one that always says how the Teutonic model of gun control prevents these thing, Fraulein Christel?

Looks like it doesn't prevent it after all... it just makes sure that the victims have no way to fight back...just like in most of the incidents in the USA that you so love to mention.

It prevents?? Never ever did I say such a nonsense. I'm for strong, rigid gun (ammo) laws here and hope, they still will be exacerbated much more.

Victims to fight back?? In a school? Kiddies enter the school fully armed or what?

And now, JR and Mister Mike, go and search my previous posts regarding weapons et al - have fun !

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mnealtx 0]

The point is that nutters will still get guns, regardless of how strictly you regulate them. Today's shooting only helps prove that point - YOU CANT KEEP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING A WEAPON.

At that point, the only effective defense is to be armed.

BTW... your ex-countryman disagrees with you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,537]

Quote

YOU CANT KEEP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING A WEAPON

Why do you lock your door? You can't keep a criminal out of your house, either.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[flusspirat 0]

You have to be kidding!
You would like to see armed children and encourage teachers to carry guns to their work in school to stop shootings?!

There is a good reason that in Germany usually only law enforcement carries weapons. They were at the school within minutes and prevented further shooting in there.

I'm not a gun hating hippie (I'm in military service myself), but pleading for lesser firearm regulation over the background of todays events just makes me sick.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You have to be kidding!
You would like to see armed children and encourage teachers to carry guns to their work in school to stop shootings?!

Children, no - teachers, why not? Are you afraid the teachers are going to kill the kids?

Quote

There is a good reason that in Germany usually only law enforcement carries weapons. They were at the school within minutes and prevented further shooting in there.

Really? You must have missed these parts of the article, then:

"Mr Nipkau said the man then fled into the city centre before police arrived on the scene"

"Police have now caught the man after hundreds of officers scoured the city for him, using helicopters and search dogs.

""For two hours the city centre was completely under curfew," Mr Nipkau told Sky News, "Hundreds of police were searching for him."'

How was that about "police stopped it in minutes", again?

A trained, armed teacher could have stopped it even quicker.

Quote

I'm not a gun hating hippie (I'm in military service myself), but pleading for lesser firearm regulation over the background of todays events just makes me sick.

Why? Explain to me how more laws are going to affect THOSE THAT DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? Explain to me how your greater firearm regulation prevented this? Oh, that's right...it didn't.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

YOU CANT KEEP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING A WEAPON

Why do you lock your door? You can't keep a criminal out of your house, either.

Wendy W.

That's right, I can't - a sufficiently motivated person will break in regardless of the type/number of locks I have on my door. For someone that is NOT motivated to break in, or for the law-abiding, the lock is sufficient.

Thanks for helping prove my point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

Me, I don't hear real often about nuts in mid-spree being shot down by the armed citizen.

It happens, but not often enough.

[wmw999 2,537]

No, Mike. To me, the analogy would be that for the insufficiently motivated, gun laws that make it harder to get guns might be a great deterrent. For the sufficiently motivated, they're not.

You can't make it perfect, but should one strive to make it better?

Why are thieves less motivated than angry people with a grudge?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

The point is that nutters will still get guns, regardless of how strictly you regulate them. .

So that justifies not even attempting to prevent nutters from getting guns?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

YOU CANT KEEP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING A WEAPON

Why do you lock your door? You can't keep a criminal out of your house, either.

Wendy W.

That's right, I can't - a sufficiently motivated person will break in regardless of the type/number of locks I have on my door. For someone that is NOT motivated to break in, or for the law-abiding, the lock is sufficient.

Thanks for helping prove my point.

No, you just made Wendy's (and my) point. Right now a nutter in the USA who wants a gun doesn't have to be highly motivated in order to get one. If we can make it so only the most highly motivated nutters get guns it will be a big improvement.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[flusspirat 0]

"They were at the school within minutes and prevented further shooting in there."
That's what I wrote. He was chased away from the children and out of the school by the patrol cops (at least that is the latest information that we can get here on the newschannels).

All the kid had to do was to walk into his fathers bedroom and grab the Beretta. I see a lot of reasons how a stricter law could have prevented this.

Dude, do you realize that we are not living in the times of "wild wild west" anymore? In my personal opinion the right to carry firearms as a civilian to feel like a super warrior with a really big schlong just doesn't justify the thousands of fatal shootings. (29,569 in 2004 in the USA, I didn't bother to find newer figures).

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The point is that nutters will still get guns, regardless of how strictly you regulate them. .

So that justifies not even attempting to prevent nutters from getting guns?

Nope, I didn't say that. Try again, WITHOUT trying to put words in my mouth.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The point is that nutters will still get guns, regardless of how strictly you regulate them. .

So that justifies not even attempting to prevent nutters from getting guns?

Nope, I didn't say that. Try again, WITHOUT trying to put words in my mouth.

Too bad that in a previous thread "Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban" you stated VERY CLEARLY that you consider accepting the nutter's own word that he or she is not a nutter to be quite acceptable.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No, Mike. To me, the analogy would be that for the insufficiently motivated, gun laws that make it harder to get guns might be a great deterrent. For the sufficiently motivated, they're not.

You can't make it perfect, but should one strive to make it better?

Why are thieves less motivated than angry people with a grudge?

Wendy W.

I understood exactly what you meant, Wendy - I just refused to play that game.

One can equallly argue that, since current laws are obviously ineffective in preventing nutters from getting guns, what difference will more laws make?

There's a LAW against murder - how much did THAT deter the shooter?

There's a LAW against a minor possessing a gun - how much did THAT deter the shooter?

I could take a 2 pound ball-pein hammer into a food mall and kill 20 people in 5 minutes - I wouldn't, because I OBEY THE LAW.

You can make as many laws as you want - criminals still won't follow them. That's why Britain is having increases in knife crime.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

No, Mike. To me, the analogy would be that for the insufficiently motivated, gun laws that make it harder to get guns might be a great deterrent. For the sufficiently motivated, they're not.

You can't make it perfect, but should one strive to make it better?

Why are thieves less motivated than angry people with a grudge?

Wendy W.

I understood exactly what you meant, Wendy - I just refused to play that game.

Well, surprise surprise. Of course you refuse, because you would lose.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Dude, do you realize that we are not living in the times of "wild wild west" anymore? In my personal opinion the right to carry firearms as a civilian to feel like a super warrior with a really big schlong just doesn't justify the thousands of fatal shootings. (29,569 in 2004 in the USA, I didn't bother to find newer figures).

I realize that you have some sort of sexual fixation about firearms, evidently. If you really feel that a firearm makes you a 'super warrior with a really big schlong", then you might just be eine grossenschwanz, yourself.

In regard to your crime numbers, the FBI stats show 16,137 murders for 2004 - your number appear skewed.

Just for your information, violent crime fell by 4.1% and the rate per 100k fell by 8.1 between 2000 and 2004 - that's WITH concealed carry states increasing from 29 in 2000 to 35 in 2004.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The point is that nutters will still get guns, regardless of how strictly you regulate them. .

So that justifies not even attempting to prevent nutters from getting guns?

Nope, I didn't say that. Try again, WITHOUT trying to put words in my mouth.

Too bad that in a previous thread "Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban" you stated VERY CLEARLY that you consider accepting the nutter's own word that he or she is not a nutter to be quite acceptable.

Well, since you aren't using those magical telepathic powers of yours to tell us who is or isn't a nutter, what else am I to do?

Any other stupid arguments?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

As long as those fatal (school-) shootings do happen that rare, our laws seem to work properly.

Your Germany has had three school massacres in the last nine years.
And you call that "gun laws working properly"?

You'll have to pardon me if I disagree.
I call that another example of the failure of gun laws.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The point is that nutters will still get guns, regardless of how strictly you regulate them. .

So that justifies not even attempting to prevent nutters from getting guns?

Nope, I didn't say that. Try again, WITHOUT trying to put words in my mouth.

Too bad that in a previous thread "Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban" you stated VERY CLEARLY that you consider accepting the nutter's own word that he or she is not a nutter to be quite acceptable.

Well, since you aren't using those magical telepathic powers of yours to tell us who is or isn't a nutter, what else am I to do?

Any other stupid arguments?

You know perfectly well, you just don't like to admit that you are wrong.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The point is that nutters will still get guns, regardless of how strictly you regulate them. .

So that justifies not even attempting to prevent nutters from getting guns?

No, but it means that at some point when you've implemented so many laws that you're infringing upon the gun ownership rights of the law-abiding, then you've gone as far as you should. Instead of then taking guns away from the law-abiding, you have to just accept the fact that some criminals are going to misuse guns, no matter what you do, and learn to live with that, to preserve freedom for everyone else.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Right now a nutter in the USA who wants a gun doesn't have to be highly motivated in order to get one. If we can make it so only the most highly motivated nutters get guns it will be a big improvement.

Nice theory. But it doesn't work in practice. No study has ever proven any causal correlation between increased gun ownership restrictions and lower gun crime.

Crime is caused by criminals, who are created by culture and poverty. Those factors have zero to do with gun laws on the books.

[billvon 3,071]

> For someone that is NOT motivated to break in, or for the
>law-abiding, the lock is sufficient.

So a law-abiding person who is trying to break into your house will be stopped by a lock? In that case, a law-abiding person who wants to kill someone with a handgun may well be stopped by a law that requires him to wait a few days before getting it.

At least we will have stopped all the law-abiding murderers (and thieves, in the case of the door lock.)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In my personal opinion the right to carry firearms as a civilian to feel like a super warrior with a really big schlong just doesn't justify the thousands of fatal shootings.

Warning: the following facts could overload some fuses in your brain cells...

Your opinion is out of touch with most of America, where 46 states issue concealed handgun permits to law-abiding citizens (regardless of the size of their penis).

And at the same time this is happening, crime rates are at a 40-year low.

Bzzzt!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> For someone that is NOT motivated to break in, or for the
>law-abiding, the lock is sufficient.

So a law-abiding person who is trying to break into your house will be stopped by a lock? In that case, a law-abiding person who wants to kill someone with a handgun may well be stopped by a law that requires him to wait a few days before getting it.

At least we will have stopped all the law-abiding murderers (and thieves, in the case of the door lock.)

Yes, like all those law-abiding murderers trying to get guns during the King riots.

Stupid argument. The law abiding aren't going to be trying to kill someone - that's why they're called LAW-ABIDING.

Maybe your next invention can be that future crime thing from that movie - that way Kallend and jerzy will know who's going to twist off at some point in the future and block their purchase.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706