16 dead in Germany school shooting

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you know Australia's only gold medal in the men's speed skating came when our guy was well behind coming last into the home stretch when the lead skater fell taking every single other skater out - our guy being so far back had time to nicely skate around them and take Gold - woohoo - my dad laughed and laughed.
Loved watching that. One of the few contact sports in the Winter games. Of course there is hockey!
 
Upvote 0

Ada Lovelace

Grateful to scientists and all health care workers
Supporter
Jun 20, 2014
5,316
9,297
California
✟1,002,256.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
How come you posted an event in Germany from 16 years ago Bob? whats the point or issue you were getting at given its such old news???

Whereas in the United States there have been numerous massacres at schools and colleges throughout our lifetime (which is about half a century shorter than Bob's), they are far rarer in Germany, so therefore Bob had to stretch back sixteen years to try to make a point. What he's succeeded in doing is making an excellent argument for the opposition to that point rather than substantiating it. Whereas in the United States gun laws paradoxically have been loosened following the slaughtering of children by gunmen at their schools, Germany tightened their gun control laws. Germany conducted a comprehensive examination of the reasons for that shooting, and enacted meaningful changes not just to their gun laws, but also in their school laws, and increased the number of psychologists for vulnerable students.

Following that shooting in Germany, a compulsory psychological test was brought in for anyone under 25 who wants to legally handle firearms. This is entirely logical considering that the median age of onset for mental illnesses such as schizophrenia is in the late teen and early twenties for males (slightly later for females). Had such a law existed in the United States, James Holmes, a doctoral student in neuroscience whose descent into derangement had gravely concerned his peers, his psychologist, and his loving family (who could not have him forcibly committed since he was a young adult), most likely would not have been able to legally purchase the weapons he used when he burst into a movie theater dressed like a comic book character and slaughtered people.

Following that shooting in Germany, the legal minimum age for those who want to join a shooting club was raised from 18 to 21. For hunters the minimum age was raised to 18 from 16.

Immediately after the shooting in Parkland last week, Russian bots seized the opportunity to sow more seeds of divisiveness and created a flood of pro-gun Tweets, memes, and social media posts, including ones about school shootings in other countries to try to (incorrectly) characterize the push for stricter gun laws in the United States as futile.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Following that shooting in Germany, a compulsory psychological test was brought in for anyone under 25 who wants to legally handle firearms. This is entirely logical considering that the median age of onset for mental illnesses such as schizophrenia is in the late teen and early twenties for males (slightly later for females).
Seems like common sense. However the Democrats won't vote for this. Nor will the more Libertarian Republicans. They will cite the 4th Amendment. They will also say why treat a private law abiding citizen who has committed no crime as if they are under suspicion for potentially committing a crime in the future.

Probably the only movement you will see is on the gun front. Meaning there will be more efforts at tightening background checks on the federal level and investing more money into states challenged to handle background checks .

There are a lot if things individual states can do to improve as well and not wait for the Fed.gov.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Seems like common sense. However the Democrats won't vote for this. Nor will the more Libertarian Republicans. They will cite the 4th Amendment. They will also say why treat a private law abiding citizen who has committed no crime as if they are under suspicion for potentially committing a crime in the future.

Probably the only movement you will see is on the gun front. Meaning there will be more efforts at tightening background checks on the federal level and investing more money into states challenged to handle background checks .

There are a lot if things individual states can do to improve as well and not wait for the Fed.gov.
I'm not well versed with American Politics in all its intricacies - but isnt that the Republican position to be pro-gun and very much against laws inhibiting access and use of guns? I thought the NRA was more Republican (Hard right leaning).
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not well versed with American Politics in all its intricacies - but isnt that the Republican position to be pro-gun and very much against laws inhibiting access and use of guns? I thought the NRA was more Republican (Hard right leaning).
Yes the NRA is a pro 2nd Amendment political action group. It used to be just a gun owners club but that was a very long time ago even before my birth. So long time ago.

As much as the right and libertarians are entrenched in the 2nd Amendment, the left and libertarians are entrenched in the 4th Amendment which protects against illegal searches and protects individual privacy.

I'm sure you have heard the more liberal politicians say "government should not be peeking into our bedrooms to involve themselves in our sex lives." Same are saying government has no right to peek into our medical and psychological records. Yet they advocate police coming to our homes to check to see how many weapons we have. But I digress.

I'm not too sure even classical conservatives (not neo cons) are all to happy about legislation which puts currently law abiding citizens without prior convictions being interrogated to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Most people who are under psychiatric care just don't go out and mass kill people. Nor do most law abiding gun owners.

That is the political impasse here in the US.

Both sides agree on one point. Law abiding citizens should not be punished and have their rights restricted based on the actions of the few.

The mental health one seems like a no brainer. So does tightening up background checks. American legislators will propose both if not more. Watch which ones who won't budge.

My Texas US senator proposed stricter background checks back in 2015. He's a conservative. Maybe based on that we might get movement this time.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Zoii
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
We have a lot more angry, nihilistic and medicated people. Just a fact.

We also have jammed packed cities where more angry, nihilistic and medicated people are in close contact.

Can we send you a few million so you can spread them out over that vast Great White (snow folks not people) North?

(Disclaimer: some sarcasm was used in response to this post. No intention was made to culturally appropriate Canadian culture or cuisine)
I have seen geographical analysis done on crime in America, and the vast majority of violent crimes are being committed in just a smattering of counties with extremely high crime rates. For the most part, outside of those counties, life in America is as safe as it is in Canada.

Guns are not illegal in Canada, but guns culture alone does not account for why crime rates are higher some places than others. Switzerland has a high acceptance of guns and gun culture, and crime rates even less than Canada.
Every country has its own unique problems, and in the States, there are anarchic urban cores that do not exist to the same extent in Canada, but do exist in countries south of the American border, which unsurprisingly have even greater murder rates and gun deaths than anywhere in the United States. A lot of American culture comes from south of the border too.

Every country has its own demographic, and suffice it to say that Americans of Swiss and Swedish descent have crime rates in America similar to what their common ancestors produced in Switzerland and Sweden. As Swedish culture becomes less indigenously Swedish, Swedish crime rates rise too.
It is not a racial thing; it is a cultural thing.

And then there is fentanyl. That has got to be worrisome. Something 100 times stronger than morphine is to kill for.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Ada Lovelace

Grateful to scientists and all health care workers
Supporter
Jun 20, 2014
5,316
9,297
California
✟1,002,256.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Seems like common sense. However the Democrats won't vote for this. Nor will the more Libertarian Republicans. They will cite the 4th Amendment. They will also say why treat a private law abiding citizen who has committed no crime as if they are under suspicion for potentially committing a crime in the future.

Probably the only movement you will see is on the gun front. Meaning there will be more efforts at tightening background checks on the federal level and investing more money into states challenged to handle background checks .

There are a lot if things individual states can do to improve as well and not wait for the Fed.gov.

I'm glad you agree it's common sense. Democrats have voted for similar common sense measures.

Last year the governor of Oregon - another state that has experienced the horrors of young people having their lives stolen or irrevocably impacted by shooting massacres at their school - signed gun control legislature creating a process for concerned family members and the police to petition the court to prohibit individuals presenting an imminent risk of harm to self or others from possessing firearms. The weapons are not merely seized without due process, though. In explaining the legislature, Brown stated that it's “the best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.” Brown is a Democrat, as are the lawmakers who pushed it into law by voting for it. Only one Republican voted yes.
Tracking Senate Bill 719 in the Oregon Legislature

The law is modeled on one adopted after a ballot referendum in 2016 in neighboring Washington, which had been initiated by a family hoping to help reduce the risk of other families experiencing a gun-related tragedy like their own. In turn, the Washington law had been modeled after one in California propelled forward after the Isla Vista massacre and the advocacy of the parents of the disturbed young man who committed it. They'd tried unsuccessfully to have the authorities confiscate his weapons after he'd exhibited increasingly disturbing behavior and written unhinged manifestos and YouTube diatribes. He was cogent enough with the police when they came to the door to convince them he posed no immediate danger, so his parents were powerless. As a legal adult, they could not have him committed against his consent to a mental health facility, and they could not merely take his legally-purchased weapons from him. The father of one of his victims joined forces with his father in promoting the need for the law.

The laws are what are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In addition to California, Washington, and Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut also have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Prompted by a number of mass shootings, 32 ERPO bills were being considered in the legislatures of 19 states (including Florida) and Washington, DC, but are, as expected, receiving significant push-back from the NRA.

At the federal level California Democrats Rep. Salud Carbajal and Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation last May that would encourage states to adopt the approach.

But, in general, in the United States after a mass shooting, gun laws are loosened.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Go Braves
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,996
Seattle
✟895,313.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I don't know what the black market is like in Australia but in America you can buy anything you want so a gun ban wouldn't stop people from getting guns if they wanted them. One can even 3D Print most of a gun now and using one that can handle hardened metals you could make a gun. Bullets can be made, re-packed...


Have a lot of experience buying black market items do you?
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,996
Seattle
✟895,313.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Part of the problem is guns are available for sale in a society which is nihilistic.

This is the society we live in all thanks to the counterculture. We reap what we show as a society.

The majority of America citizens are responsible lawful gun owners. If more stringent gun laws are enacted, the very same responsible lawful gun owners will obey.

The unstable violent types won't.

It seems rather strange to claim the issue is nihilism and then remark on the futility of laws in society. Kind of a mixed message there. ^_^


The only effective gun control measure would be the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Even then violent and unstable people will find a way to kill on mass levels.

What I don't understand is we have trained armed guards or peace officers stationed at every public building or site to include city hall, airports, sporting events, and city council buildings. Why not schools which are the most vulnerable and where our children reside during the day?

Instead we have gun free zones specifically targeted by these murderers. They know no one on staff or security is packing heat. Why attack a tiger when a lamb is readily available.

Do you have any quotes or data pointing to a specific targeting of gun free zones? I have seen nothing to date that supports this idea.

Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story

But a recent analysis of data in FBI and media reports over a nearly seven-year period shows that only 13 percent of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 took place entirely in public spaces that had been deemed gun-free zones, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, which works to tighten gun laws. In a 2013 analysis of mass shootings going back 30 years, Mother Jones found zero of 62 shootings involved a gunman who had specifically targeted a place because it banned guns.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DW1980

Don
Supporter
Dec 12, 2017
521
547
44
Scotland
✟121,809.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK - SNP
Just proves that strict gun control can't and won't stop people from getting guns and committing these horrible crimes.

Just to clarify (speaking as a non-American)... Are you saying that if you can't stop people getting guns altogether, there is no value in strict gun control?

Let's reframe this. "Just proves that strict drugs control can't and won't stop people from getting drugs and..." So may as well have not have strict laws against drug abuse?
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,997
19,442
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟488,924.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Just to clarify (speaking as a non-American)... Are you saying that if you can't stop people getting guns altogether, there is no value in strict gun control?

Let's reframe this. "Just proves that strict drugs control can't and won't stop people from getting drugs and..." So may as well have not have strict laws against drug abuse?
Following that logic, why have any laws?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DW1980

Don
Supporter
Dec 12, 2017
521
547
44
Scotland
✟121,809.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK - SNP
I guess if a law isnt 100% effective then its totally worthless.

Exactly, that's what is "funny" in this - Americans don't argue against drug laws because whatever you do, people will still get their hands on drugs. Same with guns. I noted the "Dunblane" comment by someone else, that incident led to massive reform of our gun laws, and gun crime has drastically dropped. I'd guess that injuries and suicide from guns has also declined. It's time the US joined the rest of the Western World and got a grip on this - how many more need to die for a "second amendment right" that was more relevant in the wild west than in 2018?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm glad you agree it's common sense. Democrats have voted for similar common sense measures.

Last year the governor of Oregon - another state that has experienced the horrors of young people having their lives stolen or irrevocably impacted by shooting massacres at their school - signed gun control legislature creating a process for concerned family members and the police to petition the court to prohibit individuals presenting an imminent risk of harm to self or others from possessing firearms. The weapons are not merely seized without due process, though. In explaining the legislature, Brown stated that it's “the best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.” Brown is a Democrat, as are the lawmakers who pushed it into law by voting for it. Only one Republican voted yes.
Tracking Senate Bill 719 in the Oregon Legislature

The law is modeled on one adopted after a ballot referendum in 2016 in neighboring Washington, which had been initiated by a family hoping to help reduce the risk of other families experiencing a gun-related tragedy like their own. In turn, the Washington law had been modeled after one in California propelled forward after the Isla Vista massacre and the advocacy of the parents of the disturbed young man who committed it. They'd tried unsuccessfully to have the authorities confiscate his weapons after he'd exhibited increasingly disturbing behavior and written unhinged manifestos and YouTube diatribes. He was cogent enough with the police when they came to the door to convince them he posed no immediate danger, so his parents were powerless. As a legal adult, they could not have him committed against his consent to a mental health facility, and they could not merely take his legally-purchased weapons from him. The father of one of his victims joined forces with his father in promoting the need for the law.

The laws are what are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In addition to California, Washington, and Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut also have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Prompted by a number of mass shootings, 32 ERPO bills were being considered in the legislatures of 19 states (including Florida) and Washington, DC, but are, as expected, receiving significant push-back from the NRA.

At the federal level California Democrats Rep. Salud Carbajal and Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation last May that would encourage states to adopt the approach.

But, in general, in the United States after a mass shooting, gun laws are loosened.
Well written and argued. I believe the answers are at the state level for now as I don't see the US Congress getting any bipartisan legislation other than tightening up background checks in the form of money to the states to come up to the larger states efforts. If they can get that passed I think Trump would sign it.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The laws are what are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In addition to California, Washington, and Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut also have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Prompted by a number of mass shootings, 32 ERPO bills were being considered in the legislatures of 19 states (including Florida) and Washington, DC, but are, as expected, receiving significant push-back from the NRA.
This is quite similar to family members and the state being allowed to commit people to mental institutions against their will. That no longer happens as many argued if they are an adult no one else should be able to commit them unless they have transgressed the law. There are other reasons why this was nixed years ago. For example, people who were not mentally ill were being committed because family members wanted to get rid of them or steal their money. Not to mention mental facilities more than willing to fill another bed and get the insurance money. Once again, the relevance of this is personal liberty and privacy.

However, what you opine on in what I quoted, someone has demonstrated a violent act or thread thereof. And there is due process. I will say I would not be surprised some of the cases in these states adopting such laws are challenged not on 2nd amendment premises but the 4th amendment.

I'll tell you how we did it in the military. If a Solider was deemed a threat to self or others they were ordered to surrender their weapons and we secured them in the arms room. Everyone who lived in the barracks had their weapons secured in the arms room by regulation. Now that is the military where me as the commander can do that. I am judge, jury and prosecutor. Question is how much of civil society wants to become like the military? Answer? 98% won't want something like this because if they did they would be serving in the military with the 2%. :)

Now waxing philosophical. We've had guns all over the place since before the American Revolution. We were spread out a lot more and a rural society up to about the WWII era. Now we are jammed packed into urban areas. Throw in there that even if not everyone was Christian throughout American history, most held to a social compact of not harming others (Golden Rule). Add to that most people believed in some divine retribution for killing people beyond this life. Most prior to the counterculture believed life had meaning regardless of faith background or lack thereof. Something changed starting in the 70s where people became more depressed and started to embrace the nihilistic framework of "life has no meaning" other than what we have right here in front of us. The first signs of this actually emerged in the 1950s where society looked to the amassing of wealth as the societal norm. Then came the counterculture where the amassing of personal pleasure became a societal norm. Both promoted greed, STDs, abortion and a cold hearted nation. Now that nihilistic society has many depressed and emotionally/mentally ill persons with access to guns.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,557
Colorado
✟427,896.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Exactly, that's what is "funny" in this - Americans don't argue against drug laws because whatever you do, people will still get their hands on drugs. Same with guns. I noted the "Dunblane" comment by someone else, that incident led to massive reform of our gun laws, and gun crime has drastically dropped. I'd guess that injuries and suicide from guns has also declined. It's time the US joined the rest of the Western World and got a grip on this - how many more need to die for a "second amendment right" that was more relevant in the wild west than in 2018?
We can maintain the 2nd amendment right while scaling back from high capacity semi auto firearms.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0