Nutter with gun massacres school children in Germany

[billvon 3,090]

>The idea is that ordinary citizens who are on the scene by chance
>when the shooting first starts, have a chance to stop the shooter, or drive
>him away, so that fewer people are killed.

Agreed; great theory. It failed miserably here.

>I guess you're okay with allowing a nutter to run amok for as long as
>it takes for the police to show up? Besides, if it happens to you, you'll just
>kung-fu karate-chop the shooter, and then everything will be okay.

Not at all! Only guns can stop such murderers. The Alabama people, gifted with lenient gun laws, will simply draw their weapons and shoot him dead before he so much as harms a hair on any innocent person's head. So unlike Germany, in which their country-wide victim disarmament zone will allow a murderer to kill thousands before the disarmed populace can throw enough sticks at him (because stones are outlawed) to bring him down.

Oh . . . wait . . .

Epic fail of the "guns make us perfectly safe" myth.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Epic fail of the "guns make us perfectly safe" myth.

Straw man argument. No one has ever said they make us "perfectly" safe.

If you're in a public place with your wife, and some nut starts shooting everyone in sight, which of these two scenarios would you prefer:
1) A place with strict gun laws so that no citizen is able to take action to stop the shooter, and only the arrival of the police will save you, or;
2) A place with "loose" gun laws that allows citizens to carry concealed handguns, so that there is a chance that an ordinary citizen will engage the shooter and stop the massacre before police arrive.

What's your choice?

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Epic fail of the "guns make us perfectly safe" myth.

Straw man argument. No one has ever said they make us "perfectly" safe.

If you're in a public place with your wife, and some nut starts shooting everyone in sight, which of these two scenarios would you prefer:
1) A place with strict gun laws so that no citizen is able to take action to stop the shooter, and only the arrival of the police will save you, or;
2) A place with "loose" gun laws that allows citizens to carry concealed handguns, so that there is a chance that an ordinary citizen will engage the shooter and stop the massacre before police arrive.

What's your choice?

I'd prefer the place where the nut finds it extraordinarily difficult to get the gun in the first place. Unfortunately we have gone to the opposite extreme in the USA. Thanks to people like you and mnealtx.

[billvon 3,090]

>If you're in a public place with your wife, and some nut starts shooting
>everyone in sight, which of these two scenarios would you prefer:

>1) A place with strict gun laws so that no citizen is able to take action to
>stop the shooter, and only the arrival of the police will save you, or;

>2) A place with "loose" gun laws that allows citizens to carry concealed
>handguns, so that there is a chance that an ordinary citizen will engage
>the shooter and stop the massacre before police arrive.

Or 3) a system where the nut had trouble getting the gun, and went on a rampage with a chair instead?

I'd prefer 3) overall. If the mall is full of overexcitable and poorly trained people I'd prefer 1). If the mall is full of calm and well trained people I'd prefer 2).

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Would be far more effective to prevent nutters from getting guns in the first place.

How do you propose to do that?

A good start would be not to rely on just their self-certification that they are not nutters.

Every gun purchase made by a gun dealer is done with the personal approval of an FBI background check. That demonstrates that they have no prior history of being a criminal.

I suppose you're referring to psychiatric data which is not available for background checks in every state, due to doctor/patient confidentiality laws. But if someone is enough of a nut that they're a problem to society, they usually quickly develop a criminal history. So the one that is already checked, is also a reflection of the other that is not always checked.

Do you want every gun purchaser to first have to undergo a psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to purchase a gun?

What about people who already own guns? Should they have periodic psychiatric evaluations to ensure that they haven't gone nuts since their last gun purchase?

Would these government psychiatric evaluations also apply to, say, people with driver's licenses to see if they have problems with alcohol?

Maybe we should give everyone an annual government psych eval to make sure that they're not suicidal!

Oh yeah, we could really have a good crack-down on the citizenry with this system!

Off to the gulag with 'em!

Oh, you can always come up with a dozen straw reasons why your enjoyment shouldn't be disturbed for the sake of a few lives.

"I prefer a few gun massacres rather than not have the freedom to be armed for recreation and self defense." John Rich, Sept 10, 2008

Pretty selfish attitude.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Would you allow your kid access to the handgun that you keep for home protection when your not home. How you going to use a gun for "home protection" unless your there.

According to the press reports the kid in germany enjoyed playing video games that had theme of killing people.

If the news reports are true How did the kid get hold hundreds of rounds of ammo. Why didn't dad keep all his shit locked in his safe with the rest of his guns until he got home.

Laws can only do so much.

Do you want the police randomly entering homes to inspect them for compliance with home gun storage laws? Heck, while they're at it, they could search for illegal drugs too. And water flow restricters in your shower - yeah, gotta check for those too. We can just call it a "annual government home compliance inspection". There, that doesn't sound so bad.

Do you want video games featuring gun violence to be banned?

Yes, laws can only do so much - which is just about nothing. Then at some point you have to draw a line in the sand between more laws, and freedom, because if you add too many of the former, you end up with not enough of the latter. You can turn your country into a Gestapo state trying to stop gun violence, but would it be worth that?

John

I think we agree there are enough gun laws in place.

If a person commits a crime they do the time with lots of extra's for using a gun.

The "police state" doesn't have to snoop around to figure out the kids dad screwed up. Thee aree 17 people dead. DAd screwed up and IMO should be held responsible.

JR do you think the kids dad should be held responsiable even if its after the fact and won't bring the murdered people back from the dead

A simple yes or no is ok.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Or 3) a system where the nut had trouble getting the gun, and went on a rampage with a chair instead?

I'd prefer 3) overall. If the mall is full of overexcitable and poorly trained people I'd prefer 1). If the mall is full of calm and well trained people I'd prefer 2).

That this happened in both Germany and Alabama makes it clear that you can't have scenario #3. Guns and explosives will always be obtainable if one tries long enough.

So in the end, it comes down to having the possibility of non police response, or not, in exchange for civil liberties and a higher availability of said weapons.

[billvon 3,090]

>That this happened in both Germany and Alabama makes it clear that you
>can't have scenario #3.

Apparently, since the Alabama shooter shot and killed 11 people in the course of driving 15 miles in daylight, in a state with fairly permissive gun laws, you can't have 2) either.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>That this happened in both Germany and Alabama makes it clear that you
>can't have scenario #3.

Apparently, since the Alabama shooter shot and killed 11 people in the course of driving 15 miles in daylight, in a state with fairly permissive gun laws, you can't have 2) either.

>2) A place with "loose" gun laws that allows citizens to carry concealed
>handguns, so that there is a chance that an ordinary citizen will engage
>the shooter and stop the massacre before police arrive.

Now I know you're fully capable with the English language, so I don't need to remind you what the word "chance" means. It's not a guarantee.

[billvon 3,090]

>Now I know you're fully capable with the English language, so I don't need
>to remind you what the word "chance" means. It's not a guarantee.

Of course. And I know that you understood that in my option 3) I just said make it more difficult to get the gun, not impossible to get the gun. It's not a guarantee.

[kelpdiver 2]

It's not that easy to get a gun in Germany, and yet these events continue to happen. It's not that easy in California for that matter. So how are you going to meaningfully improve upon that, short of banning them altogether?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'd prefer the place where the nut finds it extraordinarily difficult to get the gun in the first place. Unfortunately we have gone to the opposite extreme in the USA. Thanks to people like you and mnealtx.

There is no place on earth, no matter what gun laws are in place, that can prevent a nutter from getting a gun if he wants one. So your wish is just a mythical fairy tale, that has no basis in reality.

And since you can't stop bad guys from having guns, the only question is:

1) Do you want bad guys with guns to run amok with no one to stop them until police arrive, or;
2) Do you want good guys to have guns so that they can have a chance to defend themselves and others, while awaiting the arrival of the police?

You apparently prefer to let nutters run loose.

And you've really sunk to the lowest of lows by blaming this problem on guys like Neal and I, who are honest, law-abiding citizens who haven't hurt anyone.

In summary, you're someone who doesn't recognize reality, and blames the innocent for the actions of criminals.

Readers: is this the kind of person you want determining laws for your nation?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"I prefer a few gun massacres rather than not have the freedom to be armed for recreation and self defense." John Rich, Sept 10, 2008

Pretty selfish attitude.

Out of context.

See here for the full, original message:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3322056;page=5;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=50;#3327739

You're creating quite a record of infamy here:
- Believing in fairy tales (laws can prevent bad guys from getting guns)
- Blaming innocent gun owners for the actions of criminals (message #103, above)
- And now, quoting people out of context

Par for the course for the gun-o-phobes.

Advice: When you're digging yourself into a hole and have hit rock bottom, stop digging!

Readers: Are these the kind of people you want in control of your freedom?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The "police state" doesn't have to snoop around to figure out the kids dad screwed up. Thee aree 17 people dead. DAd screwed up and IMO should be held responsible.

If he violated the law, he should be prosecuted.

But that's not my point - that's after the fact, which is too late. Prosecuting now, didn't stop the shooting from happening earlier.

If you want to be preemptive, to stop shootings from nutters before they occur, then you're going to need Gestapo police-state tactics. Are you willing to go that far?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Apparently, since the Alabama shooter shot and killed 11 people in the course of driving 15 miles in daylight, in a state with fairly permissive gun laws, you can't have 2) either.

Incorrect. There are numerous news stories of ordinary citizens stopping criminal shooters in their tracks.

Israel
Pearl, Mississippi
Winnemucca, Nevada (look it up)

And beyond mass shootings, there are thousands of incidents every year where citizens take on burglars, robbers and car-jackers - and win.

Option #2 is in fact the status quo, with law-abiding citizens able to defend themselves, in their homes at least, and in many states, also away from their homes.

Given the choice to be defenseless and at the mercy of a criminal, or having a chance to defend myself with my own gun, I'll take option #2 every time.

Allowing me option #2, does not prevent you from being defenseless and at the mercy of a criminal, if that's what you choose. But don't try and take away my option, and force me to adopt yours.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Advice: When you're digging yourself into a hole and have hit rock bottom, stop digging!

Or change username...

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,090]

> So how are you going to meaningfully improve upon that, short of
> banning them altogether?

I don't know.

What these two incidents demonstrate (to me) is that:

1) trying to keep guns out of criminal's hands may work, but does not always work.

2) claiming that permissive gun laws allow people to defend themselves may work, but does not always work.

Any solution must take into account these two basic (and sadly, often-demonstrated) facts.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

The "police state" doesn't have to snoop around to figure out the kids dad screwed up. Thee aree 17 people dead. DAd screwed up and IMO should be held responsible.

If he violated the law, he should be prosecuted.

But that's not my point - that's after the fact, which is too late. Prosecuting now, didn't stop the shooting from happening earlier.

If you want to be preemptive, to stop shootings from nutters before they occur, then you're going to need Gestapo police-state tactics. Are you willing to go that far?

Hi JR

Preemptive isn't going to happen unless we go to the 1984 book scenario Thought police and all that stuff.

The nutters dad screwed up it was, dad's gun, dads ammo he needs to be proscecuted to the full extent of the law. (Maybe x 17}

Yes its after the fact but if dads punishment is severe enough than some of the other gun owners might not make the same mistake because they'll remember that dads punishment was swift and severe,

A lot of innoent people paid the ultimate price because son and dad screwed up. Being sorry doesn't count.

JR Thanks for your response

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> So how are you going to meaningfully improve upon that, short of
> banning them altogether?

I don't know.

What these two incidents demonstrate (to me) is that:

1) trying to keep guns out of criminal's hands may work, but does not always work.

2) claiming that permissive gun laws allow people to defend themselves may work, but does not always work.

Any solution must take into account these two basic (and sadly, often-demonstrated) facts.

The conclusion I draw from this is that it's better to leave laws on the permissive side (which sometimes help) rather than the restrictive (which still fail often).

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd prefer the place where the nut finds it extraordinarily difficult to get the gun in the first place. Unfortunately we have gone to the opposite extreme in the USA. Thanks to people like you and mnealtx.

There is no place on earth, no matter what gun laws are in place, that can prevent a nutter from getting a gun if he wants one. So your wish is just a mythical fairy tale, that has no basis in reality.

And, as Billvon pointed out, there's no guarantee that a civilian with a gun will stop an armed nutter either.

No-one expects perfection, just improvement. But you and those like you claim the sky is about to fall every time anyone suggests something that might just inconvenience you a little.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No-one expects perfection, just improvement. But you and those like you claim the sky is about to fall every time anyone suggests something that might just inconvenience you a little.

dying isn't just a matter of convenience.

And a lot of people have died for the Constitution.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

No-one expects perfection, just improvement. But you and those like you claim the sky is about to fall every time anyone suggests something that might just inconvenience you a little.

We're still waiting for you to post your ideas on how you think this could be done. Something besides vague generalities. Be specific. It's time for you to quit doing drive-by insults, to quit sniping at what the pro-gun folks say, and actually come forth with an actual proposal of your own. What say you?

There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books around the country. None of those are enough to satisfy you. But I'm sure you've got one more magic law that will somehow suddenly solve the problem, where all the others that came before have failed. So you'd be doing the world a favor by spreading the word about your magic solution. What is it?

Put up, or quit your whining.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

No-one expects perfection, just improvement. But you and those like you claim the sky is about to fall every time anyone suggests something that might just inconvenience you a little.

dying isn't just a matter of convenience.

And a lot of people have died for the Constitution.

A lot of people die every year from gunshot wounds while NOT doing anything to defend the Constitution. That's a weak argument.

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

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

No-one expects perfection, just improvement. But you and those like you claim the sky is about to fall every time anyone suggests something that might just inconvenience you a little.

We're still waiting for you to post your ideas on how you think this could be done. Something besides vague generalities. Be specific. It's time for you to quit doing drive-by insults, to quit sniping at what the pro-gun folks say, and actually come forth with an actual proposal of your own. What say you?

There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books around the country. None of those are enough to satisfy you. But I'm sure you've got one more magic law that will somehow suddenly solve the problem, where all the others that came before have failed. So you'd be doing the world a favor by spreading the word about your magic solution. What is it?

Put up, or quit your whining.

20,000 laws mostly made toothless for the benefit of folks like you, JR.

20,000 laws many of which can be circumvented by driving a few miles or just by CLAIMING not to be a nutter.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

20,000 laws mostly made toothless for the benefit of folks like you, JR.

There you go - that's the best the gun-o-phobes have got: blaming law-abiding gun owners, for the actions of criminals. This is priceless!

We're still waiting for one of you guys to tell us your proposals to rid the nation of gun crime.

Either put something forth, or admit that you've got no ideas, other than blaming the innocent.