NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cbs2.com/national/germany.school.shooting.2.956076.html

In Winnenden, a town near Stuttgart in Southern Germany, a 17-year-old went into his former school this morning and shot and killed what currently is put at 15 people (the link above is not up to date yet).

The gunman fled by car to a town about 40km away and is now dead, too. The radio didn't say if he shot himself or was killed by police.

[Update:

According to the police's press conference, the gunman shot 12 people in the school, 9 kids and 3 teachers (one of them a student teacher who just started there 4 weeks ago, so it was clearly random).

Then he shot a random passerby in the town, stole a car (they said "kidnapped", so I guess he got it at gunpoint) and fled, only to be caught in the controls police had put up, in that town 40km away. In the shoot-out there, police shot the gunman and two bystanders were also killed).

So, 15 dead plus the gunman.

What a fucking waste.]


Unlike the shooter in our last (and first ever) school shooting in 2002 in Erfurt (killing 16 people plus himself), who, at 19, owned his guns legally as a member of a sports gun club, this one is said to have used guns belonging to his parents, who have a gun permit and several guns (which must mean they're either hunters or in a sports gun club). After the Erfurt shooting, the age to own firearms as a competitive shooter in a sports gun club was raised from 18 to 21.

Anyway, it's another school shooting. What can you say, really? The reason I made the thread instead of waiting for someone else to post it is so gun apologists wouldn't make it and make me want to scream just reading the OP.

You already can't get at guns here unless basically you're a hunter or in a sports gun club and exceedingly few people are.

Kids have been seeing school shootings in the news from the US and, since, all over the world for many years now, and they seem to take to the established model to act out their own frustrations. The reasons why kids go into their schools or former schools and kill as many people as possible are gonna be the same no matter which country, both as clear and as muddled.

And apparently some of them can still find a way to get at guns even where it's pretty hard to do so.

:/



Edit: German gun laws (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14593968&postcount=29)

Ugh, that's horrid. In before the gun control debate.

Sad but mercifully rare.

It's just sad when Europeans try to rip off American culture.
And are more "successful" at it too.

Ugh, apparently there was a shoot out in a shopping center during the course of which not only the gunman got killed or killed himself but also two bystanders. Gah. Let's at least "hope" it was he who shot those and not the police, otherwise the aftermath of this is going to be even longer and more outdrawn. ><

It's just sad when Europeans try to rip off American culture.
And are more "successful" at it too.
We've had many decades of practice. Sometimes it feels like it's all we do.

My condolences to the victims and their families. :(

The gunman fled by car to a town about 40km away and is now dead, too. The radio didn't say if he shot himself or was killed by police.

FWIW I just heard that he was shot dead by police on the radio.

FWIW I just heard that he was shot dead by police on the radio.
Yeah. I updated the OP with that and other stuff.

It never happened. Germany has very strict gun control laws and everybody knows gun control works.

/barb

In seriousness... I don't know what to say about this really... Who knows what kind of issues this kid had that drove him to snap this way. We won't know for awhile so can only guess.

It's a tragedy.

It never happened. Germany has very strict gun control laws and everybody knows gun control works.

This won't end well...

It never happened. Germany has very strict gun control laws and everybody knows gun control works.
Why did I even bother?

Edit: hm, an edit. Orright then. *keeps eyeing suspiciously*

I never understood why people would go on a rampage and kill other innocent people.

Clearly, guns are evil and must be banned. ...Or it could be that people will get something that they want, no matter what the law says.

The gunman fled by car to a town about 40km away and is now dead, too. The radio didn't say if he shot himself or was killed by police.

Italian state TV RAI reports that he's been shot dead by the police at the end of an extensive manhunt (including helicopters and K9).

Anyway, it's another school shooting. What can you say, really? The reason I made the thread instead of waiting for someone else to post it is so gun apologists wouldn't make it and make me want to scream just reading the OP.

More control on guns (and on gun owners, even more important) is the solution.
By the way, if you use guns as member of a sports club, the guns could stay locked in a safe room within said sports club. That would be better than allowing people to keep them at home.


And apparently some of them can still find a way to get at guns even where it's pretty hard to do so.
I wouldn't call "pretty hard" to get a gun if all you need is to enlist a sports club.

Anyway, I think that the most important issue is that whomever owns or is allowed to carry a firearm should receive his permit ONLY if he passes EVERY YEAR a psychological exam. This way one can take the guns off the hands of people who are about to run into the Blue. Not the ultimate, definitive solution to gun problems, but an improvement, I think.

i feel that incidents such as this are fed by news articles such as this. it give these people the idea that its almost normal. that its almost ok to react to life this way because these other guys did. it also gives them ideas on how to carry them out.

for instance iv always wanted to rob a bank. i didnt want to kill anyone, nor did i want to keep the money. id probably send it back in giant box's and the bank would probably claim they never got it, but any way. the point is one of the reasons iv wanted to do it is because of movies. i know its wrong because first its not going to end well if im cot, and second not everyone on my team is going to not kill someone or give the money back.

now im not blaming the media, mostly the news and parents. movies are fictional i know this. this is what my parents taught this by my parents, thats why i know Devils Rejects is not a movie i should base my life off of, not that i would.

did i get this across right?

In seriousness... I don't know what to say about this really... Who knows what kind of issues this kid had that drove him to snap this way. We won't know for awhile so can only guess.
Yeah, who knows?

By all accounts, he wasn't even one of the "typical loner" types. People who knew him say he always was friendly, polite, "normal", had friends etc. When he first came in to the classroom with the gun the kids laughed because they figured it had to be a joke.
The family is pretty rich and the father is a member of one of those traditional gun clubs (for the super-stereotypical picture think Bavaria & Lederhosen & "good ol' guys" drinking beer and rifle-shooting on bullseye targets) and the guns were stored in the basement next to the model railroad...

Just a teenager with his own bunch of problems nobody really knew about.

In seriousness... I don't know what to say about this really... Who knows what kind of issues this kid had that drove him to snap this way. We won't know for awhile so can only guess.

It's a tragedy.

The thing about things like this is the perpetrator generally comes out of it dead. Makes it that much harder to figure out why exactly people do these things, and if we can do anything to prevent them.

i feel that incidents such as this are fed by news articles such as this. it give these people the idea that its almost normal. that its almost ok to react to life this way because these other guys did. it also gives them ideas on how to carry them out.

for instance iv always wanted to rob a bank. i didnt want to kill anyone, nor did i want to keep the money. id probably send it back in giant box's and the bank would probably claim they never got it, but any way. the point is one of the reasons iv wanted to do it is because of movies. i know its wrong because first its not going to end well if im cot, and second not everyone on my team is going to not kill someone or give the money back.

now im not blaming the media, mostly the news and parents. movies are fictional i know this. this is what my parents taught this by my parents, thats why i know Devils Rejects is not a movie i should base my life off of, not that i would.

did i get this across right?
It's difficult, though. Obviously the school shooters are copy-catting each other. And if there'd never been any school shooting anywhere then it wouldn't have become such a popular thing, either. But of course there's always been people going on a killing spree, mostly with guns for easier killing, and of course the first school shooting did happen.
And it's not like the media can't report on it. Sure, the US has these insane 24-hour news networks who get about 2 weeks of round-the-clock coverage of every grisly details out of it, but it happened, it's a big story, it will be in the news.
And short of imposing a complete media silence you can't prevent copy cats.

More control on guns (and on gun owners, even more important) is the solution.

If criminals respected gun control laws, you might have a point. But...they don't.

If criminals respected gun control laws, you might have a point. But...they don't.

More control on guns doesn't necessarily involve new or different laws. More police enforcement of current laws could work.

Besides, if someone really wanted a gun, they could obtain one on the black market, or make one - it isn't that hard. There are probably plenty of places online where they can learn how to make a homemade gun.

Besides, if someone really wanted a gun, they could obtain one on the black market, or make one - it isn't that hard. There are probably plenty of places online where they can learn how to make a homemade gun.

Therefore....what? Give up trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or nuts who'd shoot up schools?

Therefore....what? Give up trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or nuts who'd shoot up schools?

No, treat the criminals and address the underlying causes that lead people like this to shoot up schools.

No, treat the criminals and address the underlying causes that lead people like this to shoot up schools.

I would have figured doing both would be the best idea. Try to keep people from ever wanting to commit crimes, and until we perfect that, make it difficult to commit crimes successfully.

I would have figured doing both would be the best idea. Try to keep people from ever wanting to commit crimes, and until we perfect that, make it difficult to commit crimes successfully.

I agree, but the problem is that gun control also makes it more difficult for law-abiding people to buy guns.

I agree, but the problem is that gun control also makes it more difficult for law-abiding people to buy guns.

Yes, it does. Not that much of a downside.




*is listening to the radio*
10 students and 3 teachers killed, one more person in the town square, two more in the shoot out with police(not specified whether the police or shooter killed them), then he shot himself.

And short of imposing a complete media silence you can't prevent copy cats.

Rather than media silence, perhaps the other way around, but with a twist. Copy cats do school shootings because it looks like an easy way to get your bit of revenge/fantasy/5 minute fame with all the media coverage on it.

What is needed is more school shootings that are not only botched up by the perps (e.g. no one dies), but results in them being humiliated in every way possible for the rest of their lives and the humiliation publicized. Copy cat crimes tend to drop off when the crimes are done by clowns who get laughed at by everyone.

More control on guns (and on gun owners, even more important) is the solution.
By the way, if you use guns as member of a sports club, the guns could stay locked in a safe room within said sports club. That would be better than allowing people to keep them at home.
I agree. Dunno why they keep them at home anyway. Well, okay, they keep them at home because it traditionally wasn't an issue so there was no reason not to.
And of course even then you'd still have the hunters who'd keep their guns at home and hunters have teenaged kids, too.

I wouldn't call "pretty hard" to get a gun if all you need is to enlist a sports club.

Anyway, I think that the most important issue is that whomever owns or is allowed to carry a firearm should receive his permit ONLY if he passes EVERY YEAR a psychological exam. This way one can take the guns off the hands of people who are about to run into the Blue. Not the ultimate, definitive solution to gun problems, but an improvement, I think.
Well, you have to do more than enlist in a sports club.

To be able to buy a gun, you have to get a Waffenbesitzkarte, which you get when you:

- are above the mandatory age (like 21 for a sports gun club)
- have an acceptable reason for wanting one (i.e. mainly either hunting or sports clubs; in specific cases also weapon collection, weapon experts and self-defense if you're especially threatened)
- have no criminal record
- are physically and psychologically fit to own a weapon. This is determined by checking whatever records there are available on you (police, court, school etc.), by excluding people with mental illnesses or known alcohol or drug problems, and, if there are doubts or if you're under 25 years old, period, by a psychological examination.
- have passed an exam showing you have the requisite knowledge to own and operate a gun responsibly

Once you have that permit, you have to do at least 18 mandatory training sessions per year with each of your guns.
It can get revoked for things like driving under the influence of alcohol or not keeping your guns locked up in a safe or special locker separate from the ammunition (as seems to have been the case here).

All this refers only to owning the weapon and using it either as a licensed hunter or on the grounds of a sports gun club. Transporting the gun to either has to be done with the ammunition separate in a closed container.

To be able to actually carry a loaded gun you need another permit, the Waffenschein, which is only given when you can prove that your life is threatened and a gun could reasonably lower that threat. The Waffenschein has to be renewed after 3 years. (I have no idea whom that applies to - high-profile managers who have gotten death threats against them? Secret agents?)

Even with this permit it's not allowed to carry guns in public assemblies (like protests and such).


That took forever to write, sorry, I had to look it all up.

(I have no idea whom that applies to - high-profile managers who have gotten death threats against them? Secret agents?)

Maybe people who are going to testify against organised criminals too. Probably anyone who has gotten credible threats against their life. Probably bodyguards for these people too.

I agree, but the problem is that gun control also makes it more difficult for law-abiding people to buy guns.
Why is that a problem?

If we were to look at the percentage of law-abiding people being killed in Germany by criminals with guns and compare it to the percentage of law-abiding people being killed by other law-abiding people with guns (well, law-abiding at least till that very moment, I guess) in the US I'm very sure we'd get VASTLY different numbers.

Maybe people who are going to testify against organised criminals too. Probably anyone who has gotten credible threats against their life. Probably bodyguards for these people too.
Yeah, that's possible.

Apparently another student just died in the hospital from his injuries.

Why is that a problem?It doesn't even seem to be that hard in Germany. All you have to do is join a hunting/sport club, or have a family member that's in. The second is what happened, this time.

Apparently another student just died in the hospital from his injuries.Sixteen, now?

Sixteen, now?

I think so. 17 if you want to count the shooter.

Sad but mercifully rare.
Yeah, happened only twice here in the last two years...Oh wait, that's not rare.


What angers me greatly is that school shooters themselves die before having to explain why they did what they did. :(

Yeah, happened only twice here in the last two years...Oh wait, that's not rare.


What angers me greatly is that school shooters themselves die before having to explain why they did what they did. :(

Seconded. I don't know how helpful it'd be to know why they do these things, but every little helps.

I think so. 17 if you want to count the shooter.Oh, I thought fifteen was counting the shooter.

Oh, I thought fifteen was counting the shooter.

Huh, the Beeb still has 15.

It doesn't even seem to be that hard in Germany. All you have to do is join a hunting/sport club, or have a family member that's in. The second is what happened, this time.
Not really, see my post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14593968&postcount=29

Also, we don't have hunting clubs. You're either a licensed hunter or you can't go hunting.

But yeah, still, it's the second time. One guy was in a sports club himself, the other had a father who was and took his weapons. And honestly, even if the father had locked up his weapons and the ammunition separately - unless he keeps them in a safe with a secret number lock the kid could have gotten at them. And who keeps their guns in a safe with a secret number lock? It's not like anybody ever expects their kid to go do this.

All of which, of course, leads *me* to say "Fucking guns are nothing but trouble, no matter how safe you try and make them", while it seems to lead others to say we need more of them or at least should stop making it so hard to get at them. That's how it always goes in these discussions, it seems.

Holy shit, I just read about the shooting spree in Alabama that went on yesterday. :eek:
I live less than an hour away from there, and I'm just now reading about it? Wow.
Linky~ (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=albtA0Y.Hzh4&refer=home)

I think so. 17 if you want to count the shooter.
This.

Holy shit, I just read about the shooting spree in Alabama that went on yesterday. :eek:
I live less than an hour away from there, and I'm just now reading about it? Wow.
Linky~ (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=albtA0Y.Hzh4&refer=home)

I heard about that too. Some nut burned his mother's house down and shot a bunch of his relatives. Bad week for shootings.

I heard about that too. Some nut burned his mother's house down and shot a bunch of his relatives. Bad week for shootings.Killed his mother and her dogs before placing them on and around the couch and lighting them on fire. ...And his friends say he was a normal guy, too. ...Ugh, really bad week.

Ban normal people.

Ban normal people.I am Gauntleted Fist, and I endorse this statement! :p

Seconded. I don't know how helpful it'd be to know why they do these things, but every little helps.

School shootings always happen for multiple reasons that include not only the mental state of the shooter but the environment the person has lived in, for example the oft mentioned bullying or, perhaps, substance abuse*.

Having interviewed the shooter(s) the police, nay, the society might come up with a profile and perhaps recognize signs of a potential problem case and intervene before its too late.

The sad fact is that without the shooter can only hazard guesses of the motives behind the actions, which can potentially lead into people in power Doing All The Wrong Things For The Sake Of Doing Something, like metal detectors and body searches instead of - say - improving mental health care at schools or reducing class sizes.


* One thing people often forget is that alcohol, while possibly improving the mood temporarily, causes depression in the long term

Ban normal people.
But then who will stand in the background and provide informative commentary like, "Oh my god!"; "He's got a bomb!"; "What happened to my pants? Oh right, I soiled them because HE'S GOT A FUCKING BOMB!"

[Update 2: another student died in the hospital, so it's 16 dead plus the gunman.]

Seems that wasn't true, at least. So it's still 16 people dead including the gunman.

If criminals respected gun control laws, you might have a point. But...they don't.

This was not a "professional" criminal. This was a guy who went crazy and used weapons legally detained in his own home. As for most spree killers.
So my point is still valid.

By the way, if you limit gun ownership by enforcing a tighter control on guns, ammo and owners, illegal firearms become less likely and more costly to achieve. So maybe, while harshed control would not resolve the issue with professional criminals, it would still carry some benefits about it.

Not really, see my post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14593968&postcount=29

Also, we don't have hunting clubs. You're either a licensed hunter or you can't go hunting.

But yeah, still, it's the second time. One guy was in a sports club himself, the other had a father who was and took his weapons. And honestly, even if the father had locked up his weapons and the ammunition separately - unless he keeps them in a safe with a secret number lock the kid could have gotten at them. And who keeps their guns in a safe with a secret number lock? It's not like anybody ever expects their kid to go do this.

All of which, of course, leads *me* to say "Fucking guns are nothing but trouble, no matter how safe you try and make them", while it seems to lead others to say we need more of them or at least should stop making it so hard to get at them. That's how it always goes in these discussions, it seems.

An answer to the bolded part would be, my sister and brother in law (who have 4 kids aged from almost 11 to almost 2), and myself (and I have no kids that I'm aware of).

Clearly if Germany had concealed carry laws, this wouldnt have happened.
This was not a "professional" criminal. This was a guy who went crazy and used weapons legally detained in his own home. As for most spree killers.
So my point is still valid.

In the last two most prominent school shootings in the US, the shooters aquired their guns legally.

It seems it was the case here too.

I agree. Dunno why they keep them at home anyway. Well, okay, they keep them at home because it traditionally wasn't an issue so there was no reason not to.
And of course even then you'd still have the hunters who'd keep their guns at home and hunters have teenaged kids, too.


Well, you have to do more than enlist in a sports club.

To be able to buy a gun, you have to get a Waffenbesitzkarte, which you get when you:

- are above the mandatory age (like 21 for a sports gun club)
- have an acceptable reason for wanting one (i.e. mainly either hunting or sports clubs; in specific cases also weapon collection, weapon experts and self-defense if you're especially threatened)
- have no criminal record
- are physically and psychologically fit to own a weapon. This is determined by checking whatever records there are available on you (police, court, school etc.), by excluding people with mental illnesses or known alcohol or drug problems, and, if there are doubts or if you're under 25 years old, period, by a psychological examination.
- have passed an exam showing you have the requisite knowledge to own and operate a gun responsibly

Once you have that permit, you have to do at least 18 mandatory training sessions per year with each of your guns.
It can get revoked for things like driving under the influence of alcohol or not keeping your guns locked up in a safe or special locker separate from the ammunition (as seems to have been the case here).

All this refers only to owning the weapon and using it either as a licensed hunter or on the grounds of a sports gun club. Transporting the gun to either has to be done with the ammunition separate in a closed container.

To be able to actually carry a loaded gun you need another permit, the Waffenschein, which is only given when you can prove that your life is threatened and a gun could reasonably lower that threat. The Waffenschein has to be renewed after 3 years. (I have no idea whom that applies to - high-profile managers who have gotten death threats against them? Secret agents?)

Even with this permit it's not allowed to carry guns in public assemblies (like protests and such).


That took forever to write, sorry, I had to look it all up.

Sounds like more regulation is needed!:rolleyes:

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but if people want to commit crimes with guns, they will do it no matter what the gun control laws are like. There are persistent people who want to murder others out there you know.

Sounds like more regulation is needed!:rolleyes:

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but if people want to commit crimes with guns, they will do it no matter what the gun control laws are like. There are persistent people who want to murder others out there you know.

Awesome, but just stating it doesnt make it so. One can make the arguement that there isnt enough regulation.

In this case, and in the last two most high profile US school shootings, the guns were obtained legally.

In this case, and in the last two most high profile US school shootings, the guns were obtained legally.
Isn't that just One Eyed Weasel's point?

Isn't that just One Eyed Weasel's point?

No, his point is we shouldnt have regulation because they'll get guns anyway, and he thinks this somehow proves it.


My point is it proves no such thing.

No, his point is we shouldnt have regulation because they'll get guns anyway, and he thinks this somehow proves it.
Well, I think there's a case to be made that none but the most authoritarian, undesirable, control of firearms will cease gun sprees such as this.

What legislation can prevent previously 'normal' gun owners from having a mental breakdown and going on a rampage?

Well, I think there's a case to be made that none but the most authoritarian, undesirable, control of firearms will cease gun sprees such as this.

What legislation can prevent previously 'normal' gun owners from having a mental breakdown and going on a rampage?

Nothing, and I dont support any measure that would. I actually have no issue with guns as long as there is regulation to some extent.


Im just saying that standing up and yelling "Clearly this proves that regulation of any kind fails!" is not accurate, because the case can just as easily be made that this shows there wasnt enough regulation, because the guns were aquired legally.

Really, this incident shows nothing other then tragedy, and trying to politicize it is fallacious.

PS- Ive always wanted to ask. How much do you look like your avatar. Because it would be really awesome if you looked just like it.

Awesome, but just stating it doesnt make it so. One can make the arguement that there isnt enough regulation.

In this case, and in the last two most high profile US school shootings, the guns were obtained legally.

Exactly. If people want to kill others, they will get the means to do so. What makes you think they can't fake a psych exam or go through any other bullshit with the intent to kill? Even if they couldn't obtain it legally, they'll steal them, or hell, go on a knifing spree (Was that Japan that happened in recently?).

Isn't that just One Eyed Weasel's point?

Yes.

Well, I think there's a case to be made that none but the most authoritarian, undesirable, control of firearms will cease gun sprees such as this.

What legislation can prevent previously 'normal' gun owners from having a mental breakdown and going on a rampage?

Exactly.

No, his point is we shouldnt have regulation because they'll get guns anyway, and he thinks this somehow proves it.


My point is it proves no such thing.

Where did I even say that? What I'm saying is that all these people that call for more regulation are foolish because criminals/people who want others to die will get guns anyway. Black market anyone?

Like I said before, they could even go on a stabbing spree. They could even do it with a pen, or a drawing compass, or a bat. There are people that really truly want others to die, and they will do it any way they can.

Exactly. If people want to kill others, they will get the means to do so. What makes you think they can't fake a psych exam or go through any other bullshit with the intent to kill? Even if they couldn't obtain it legally, they'll steal them, or hell, go on a knifing spree (Was that Japan that happened in recently?).

Fake a psych exam? Do you know how hard that is?

Where did I even say that? What I'm saying is that all these people that call for more regulation are foolish because criminals will get guns anyway. Black market anyone?

Ah yes, and you can of course point me to a case in a country where guns are banned of shooting sprees and wild west esc shoot outs where the criminals obtained guns on the black market?

Oh wait, no, you cant, because it doesnt really happen. The whole "black market" arguement is a boogeyman with no basis in reality.

So, once again, this isnt a matter of regulation. Period. The guns were obtained legally, so one can make the arguement that there wasnt enough regulation. Im not going to make that arguement, but someone could.

Im just saying that standing up and yelling "Clearly this proves that regulation of any kind fails!" is not accurate, because the case can just as easily be made that this shows there wasnt enough regulation, because the guns were aquired legally.
I think we need to separate gun crime and gun sprees, if you take my meaning.

Your point above is certainly a sound one for gun crime, but not, I think, for tackling those unfortunates like the man in this current shooting.

PS- Ive always wanted to ask. How much do you look like your avatar. Because it would be really awesome if you looked just like it.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't look incredibly like the great Ivor Cutler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay_0_nWu8rw), though my accent, if not as lilty, isn't too far off.

I think we need to separate gun crime and gun sprees, if you take my meaning.

Your point above is certainly a sound one for gun crime, but not, I think, for tackling those unfortunates like the man in this current shooting.

Its true school shootings are a totally different animal, and thats why I dont even understand why it always turns into a gun control debate.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't look incredibly like the great Ivor Cutler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay_0_nWu8rw)

:(

Where did I even say that? What I'm saying is that all these people that call for more regulation are foolish
So you're not saying that there shouldn't be any regulation but at the same time you're saying "more" regulation doesn't accomplish anything and is foolish?

More regulation than what? The current US laws? Some foolishness-line based on what you personally think is proper?

Recognizing that you can never completely prevent a killing spree such as this does not speak to how effective gun regulation is in regards to the vast majority of gun violence. And looking at the gun crime stats of our respective countries, I'd say it's pretty damn effective indeed.

Fake a psych exam? Do you know how hard that is?

It can be done though, no?



Ah yes, and you can of course point me to a case in a country where guns are banned of shooting sprees and wild west esc shoot outs where the criminals obtained guns on the black market?

Oh wait, no, you cant, because it doesnt really happen. The whole "black market" arguement is a boogeyman with no basis in reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

-England's gun laws

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6370693.stm

-First google hit. Where did these armed men get guns? Hmmm...

So, once again, this isnt a matter of regulation. Period. The guns were obtained legally, so one can make the arguement that there wasnt enough regulation. Im not going to make that arguement, but someone could.

OK, they were obtained legally, but all of the people that went on these shooting sprees were deemed basically "normal" (except for that guy in VT shootings, that was the dealer's fault though IMO). So if these "normal" people could get guns, what legislation could be put into place that would separate these "normal" people from other "normal" people.

If you don't want to make the argument though KoL, I'd like someone to suggest legislation that would separate these "normal" people from guns, but not other "normal" people.

Yeah, who knows?

By all accounts, he wasn't even one of the "typical loner" types. People who knew him say he always was friendly, polite, "normal", had friends etc. When he first came in to the classroom with the gun the kids laughed because they figured it had to be a joke.
The family is pretty rich and the father is a member of one of those traditional gun clubs (for the super-stereotypical picture think Bavaria & Lederhosen & "good ol' guys" drinking beer and rifle-shooting on bullseye targets) and the guns were stored in the basement next to the model railroad...

Just a teenager with his own bunch of problems nobody really knew about.

I'd be curious to know if any groups are going to start looking into his video game playing habits to search for a scapegoat there. It seems like Jack Thompson might be taking a trip...

The thing about things like this is the perpetrator generally comes out of it dead. Makes it that much harder to figure out why exactly people do these things, and if we can do anything to prevent them.

Agreed. Wouldn't it be great if we could just grab him and ask why? Same thing with Columbine... All we can do is speculate and hypothesize, but ultimately we can't know for sure beyond what they said in their suicide notes.

Did this guy leave such a note, I wonder?

I'd be curious to know if any groups are going to start looking into his video game playing habits to search for a scapegoat there.

Definitely. They did that after the Erfurt shooting in 2002, which apparently helped the passing of new, stricter youth protection laws.

So you're not saying that there shouldn't be any regulation but at the same time you're saying "more" regulation doesn't accomplish anything and is foolish?

The only more regulation does is makes it harder for law-abiding citizens on the whole.

More regulation than what? The current US laws? Some foolishness-line based on what you personally think is proper?

Yes the US laws. Granted basically anyone can get a gun (I agree a look into medical records is a good thing for psychological analysis) but how can you regulate what a person is going to do with that gun? Do you really think they will admit to what they're going to be doing with that gun if they do have the intent to kill? How would more regulation keep a "normal" person from snapping and going on a shooting spree?

Recognizing that you can never completely prevent a killing spree such as this does not speak to how effective gun regulation is in regards to the vast majority of gun violence. And looking at the gun crime stats of our respective countries, I'd say it's pretty damn effective indeed.

Alright, but the stats don't show if the majority of guns used in those crimes were indeed owned by the individuals that committed the crimes. My money is on the "No" answer.

So what's the answer then? Take all guns from private citizens so that criminals wouldn't be able to steal them from citizens?

:(
Don't be sad!

Listen to some more Cutler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e_hN2uzW0k) to cheer up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

-England's gun laws

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6370693.stm

-First google hit. Where did these armed men get guns? Hmmm...

Yeah, so it happens occasionally. I never denied that. But it doesnt happen with any regularity. And a quick look a gun crime statistics will show that.

OK, they were obtained legally, but all of the people that went on these shooting sprees were deemed basically "normal" (except for that guy in VT shootings, that was the dealer's fault though IMO). So if these "normal" people could get guns, what legislation could be put into place that would separate these "normal" people from other "normal" people.

None aside from an outright ban (which statistcs show actually works well for a lot of western Europe). But that doesnt mean we should "loosen" regulations.

I dont want an outright ban, however. Gun violence, in the US at least, is more a product of culture and socioeconomics. Gun control is just a bandaid on a ruptured artery.

The only more regulation does is makes it harder for law-abiding citizens on the whole.
To quote myself from an earlier post:

Why is that a problem?

If we were to look at the percentage of law-abiding people being killed in Germany by criminals with guns and compare it to the percentage of law-abiding people being killed by other law-abiding people with guns (well, law-abiding at least till that very moment, I guess) in the US I'm very sure we'd get VASTLY different numbers.

Yes the US laws. Granted basically anyone can get a gun (I agree a look into medical records is a good thing for psychological analysis) but how can you regulate what a person is going to do with that gun? Do you really think they will admit to what they're going to be doing with that gun if they do have the intent to kill?
Um, I seriously doubt anyone would go through the trouble necessary due to regulations here just so he could get a gun to kill someone. There's easier and faster ways to kill someone.

How would more regulation keep a "normal" person from snapping and going on a shooting spree?
More regulation than super-stringent regulation (more stringent than here)? It wouldn't, as mentioned before.
More regulation than in the US? By making it far more difficult to get your hands on a gun and by making it far more unlikely that someone would even be thinking about trying to get a gun to go take his revenge out on schoolmates and coworkers.

Alright, but the stats don't show if the majority of guns used in those crimes were indeed owned by the individuals that committed the crimes. My money is on the "No" answer.

So what's the answer then? Take all guns from private citizens so that criminals wouldn't be able to steal them from citizens?
For one, in the case of the most severe of gun crimes, homicides, I'd be pretty sure that most guns involved are legally owned, simply because those are often committed by otherwise "law abiding citizens".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the last sentence, sorry.

I'd be curious to know if any groups are going to start looking into his video game playing habits to search for a scapegoat there. It seems like Jack Thompson might be taking a trip...
Seems like its already happening... (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0312/p25s06-woeu.html)
politicians are calling for tightened gun laws and pointed fingers at the video games and media for promoting what they see as a culture of violence.

Holy shit, I just read about the shooting spree in Alabama that went on yesterday. :eek:
I live less than an hour away from there, and I'm just now reading about it? Wow.
Well, it was in the US, so *yawn* if it isn't in a school or involve some titillating element, it's not going to get that much coverage.

It's just sad when Europeans try to rip off American culture.
And are more "successful" at it too.

We've had many decades of practice. Sometimes it feels like it's all we do.

Germans do a lot of things better. Except Uwe Boll.

I heard about that too. Some nut burned his mother's house down and shot a bunch of his relatives. Bad week for shootings.

Well what did you expect? Battlestar Galactica is about to end and people aren't coping well...

Germans do a lot of things better. Except Uwe Boll.

^This

Sounds like more regulation is needed!:rolleyes:

Enough regulation =/= enough enforcement of the regulation.
Enough regulation =/= enough control.


Btw, thanks to Whereyouthinkyougoing for the explanation.

If criminals respected gun control laws, you might have a point. But...they don't.
The shooter wasn't a legal gun owner, but he obtained the guns from a legal gun owner. It's not like they were illegally purchased or stolen guns.

No, treat the criminals and address the underlying causes that lead people like this to shoot up schools.

Aye.

Personally I blame a global "culture of fear", most likely caused by the Cold War and looming threat of nuclear annihilation, followed up by the rise of global terrorism and suchlike. This leads to people wanting to own guns to make themselves feel secure, which in turn glamorizes violence, which in turn gives confidence to sociopaths.

Or we could just rehabilitate or kill all the sociopaths. They could get much better careers as lawyers and bank managers. *ducks*

I was looking at CNN, and I noticed something. Their front page picture about the incident: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/WORLD/europe/03/11/germany.school.shooting/t1wide.students.gi.jpg. They're all fucking blond. Wonder if they all have blue eyes?

I am Gauntleted Fist, and I endorse this statement! :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pduRbz7IbIo

:D

The shooter wasn't a legal gun owner, but he obtained the guns from a legal gun owner. It's not like they were illegally purchased or stolen guns.
Illegally obtained anyway. Hence not enough controlled.


*ducks*
*seagulls*

:tongue:

I actualy lol'd when I first heard about this on the radio. Fun times. A shame he didn't an hero.

I actualy lol'd when I first heard about this on the radio. Fun times. A shame he didn't an hero.

Shooting sprees are teh lulz:rolleyes:

I actualy lol'd when I first heard about this on the radio. Fun times.
What would motivate you to laugh at a story such as this?

A shame he didn't an hero.
Eh?

What would motivate you to laugh at a story such as this?




As someone whos college was shot up last year, I have a few guesses.

Many of my guesses, however, would earn me a temp ban.

The police has said that apparently the father of the gunman had 18 weapons at home (which everyone mentioning it seems to consider absolutely crazy), 17 of which were actually locked away as stipulated by law. Only one wasn't, and that was enough...

I was looking at CNN, and I noticed something. Their front page picture about the incident: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/WORLD/europe/03/11/germany.school.shooting/t1wide.students.gi.jpg. They're all fucking blond. Wonder if they all have blue eyes?
There you see how subjective pictures can be. The TV footage I just saw had a striking majority of dark haired kids, many of them likely of Turkish origin.

I'd be curious to know if any groups are going to start looking into his video game playing habits to search for a scapegoat there.
I was positively surprised just now. Our biggest TV network had a special right after the main evening news and they & the experts and politicians they had on were not only very cautious about not jumping to conclusions on the motives behind the killings but it was also pointed out that while video games and movies will likely be blamed to some extent experts agree that these things don't cause events like this but merely act as a conduit for already disturbed or violence-prone individuals. Not that I don't think that's still problematic.

Also, most talk in that special was in fact about the need for more & better psychological help & counseling in schools. Apparently that was stepped up a lot after the 2002 shooting but has since been neglected again (because of course it costs money).

What would motivate you to laugh at a story such as this?
Because it's funny?

Eh?
Turn his gun on himself. Wasn't he killed in a shootout with the Porky Patrol?

Because it's funny?



lulz?


*throws fireball and acid flask at Indri* That should take care of the troll.

Because it's funny?
In what sense?

I can't see anything funny, even morbidly so, in any of the reports.

In what sense?

I can't see anything funny, even morbidly so, in any of the reports.
That's because you don't have a sense of humor. I see the funny side.

That's because you don't have a sense of humor. I see the funny side.
In an attempt to show how you're not just flamebaiting/attention-whoring, could you explain the 'funny side' of 15+ people being shot dead?

I love morbid humour -- Jam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o04BRVSy_5c&feature=related) is a particular favourite of mine -- but I fail to see its application here.

I wanna laugh too. Explain the funny part please.

That's because you don't have a sense of humor. I see the funny side.

The Comedian? Is that you?

To quote myself from an earlier post:




Um, I seriously doubt anyone would go through the trouble necessary due to regulations here just so he could get a gun to kill someone. There's easier and faster ways to kill someone.

Exactly. Why is there a call for more regulation then? (In cases like these, I don't know if there is an actual call for more regulation in this particular case).


More regulation than super-stringent regulation (more stringent than here)? It wouldn't, as mentioned before.
More regulation than in the US? By making it far more difficult to get your hands on a gun and by making it far more unlikely that someone would even be thinking about trying to get a gun to go take his revenge out on schoolmates and coworkers.

But you just said that there are easier and quicker ways to kill people... So what would be the point of having more regulation? I doubt that would deter people from killing someone if they really wanted to.


For one, in the case of the most severe of gun crimes, homicides, I'd be pretty sure that most guns involved are legally owned, simply because those are often committed by otherwise "law abiding citizens".

Or maybe a lot of homicides come from gang-related violence where weapons are illegally obtained. Most gang members have criminal backgrounds, and thus cannot obtain weapons legally. Seems like regulation is working there...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the last sentence, sorry.

By that sentence I meant theft of weapons, which is a big way criminals can get their hands on guns. Should have been more clear, sorry.

Yes, it does. Not that much of a downside.

It's a major downside. It leaves people defenseless against thugs with guns.

But then who will stand in the background and provide informative commentary like, "Oh my god!"; "He's got a bomb!"; "What happened to my pants? Oh right, I soiled them because HE'S GOT A FUCKING BOMB!"
You can do it. LG will be your anchor man.
Ah yes, and you can of course point me to a case in a country where guns are banned of shooting sprees and wild west esc shoot outs where the criminals obtained guns on the black market?

Oh wait, no, you cant, because it doesnt really happen. The whole "black market" arguement is a boogeyman with no basis in reality.
Pshah. What could be easier than establishing a black market for guns in a country in which guns are banned? Any prat off the street will be able to get any kind of gun he wants, obviously.
Well what did you expect? Battlestar Galactica is about to end and people aren't coping well...
You'd think they'd at least wait until after the finale leaked to the internet.
There you see how subjective pictures can be. The TV footage I just saw had a striking majority of dark haired kids, many of them likely of Turkish origin.
Damned Auslander, eh? :p
It's a major downside. It leaves people defenseless against thugs with guns.
No it doesn't. Shooting your assailant isn't the One True Way to survive every possible criminal incident.

No it doesn't. Shooting your assailant isn't the One True Way to survive every possible criminal incident.

What if (theoretically speaking) a whole gang with guns invades your home?

What if (theoretically speaking) a whole gang with guns invades your home?

Barricade myself in my room, call the cops, wait for them to leave/the cops to arrive. What do you think I could do with a gun? Kill them all before one of them killed me? Scare off an armed gang(5-10 people, presumably) with my one gun?

Barricade myself in my room, call the cops, wait for them to leave/the cops to arrive. What do you think I could do with a gun? Kill them all before one of them killed me? Scare off an armed gang(5-10 people, presumably) with my one gun?

I think certian posters have watched too many action movies.

Also, most talk in that special was in fact about the need for more & better psychological help & counseling in schools. Apparently that was stepped up a lot after the 2002 shooting but has since been neglected again (because of course it costs money).

Sad story aside, I can't help but notice that you're using an awful lot of "&"-signs in this thread... :p

Barricade myself in my room, call the cops, wait for them to leave/the cops to arrive. What do you think I could do with a gun? Kill them all before one of them killed me? Scare off an armed gang(5-10 people, presumably) with my one gun?

Good luck with that. If you call the cops and then order a pizza, the pizza delivery man is more likely to arrive first. Assuming the cops even do arrive.

I think certian posters have watched too many action movies.

Never heard of home invasions?

Good luck with that. If you call the cops and then order a pizza, the pizza delivery man is more likely to arrive first. Assuming the cops even do arrive.

I want to know what world people live in where the cops are this inept.

Exactly. Why is there a call for more regulation then? (In cases like these, I don't know if there is an actual call for more regulation in this particular case).

Is there? In cases like these? In Germany, or Europe for that matter?

I want to know what world people live in where the cops are this inept.

This one.

Good luck with that. If you call the cops and then order a pizza, the pizza delivery man is more likely to arrive first. Assuming the cops even do arrive.

Is that a universal truth, you think?

This one.

Apperantly not.

Is that a universal truth, you think?

Not universal, but common enough. In the U.S., at least.

Not universal, but common enough. In the U.S., at least.

Soucre?

Apperantly not.

Apparently so.

Of course, if you call the cops and say "I have drugs!" then they'll arrive very quickly. The only drawback? They'll shoot up your house and kill your dogs (if you have any), and maybe even you. You've heard of the War on Drugs, haven't you?

Barricade myself in my room, call the cops, wait for them to leave/the cops to arrive. What do you think I could do with a gun? Kill them all before one of them killed me? Scare off an armed gang(5-10 people, presumably) with my one gun?

Obviously, you'll use your Gun Kata (you have studied Gun Kata, right?) and epic-level kung fu skills (don't worry about those, you can pick them up within a few weeks or so with good enough training) to shoot them one by one while dodging their bullets and backflipping over their heads. When the last one begs for mercy, you'll lazily blow the smoke from your gun barrel and then shoot him in the head. Then you'll make out with some hot chick and go on the run from the police, shooting anyone who gets in your way, and going through a lot of cars in the process.

Or otherwise you'll die like the nameless NPC you are. But that's boring.

Apparently so.

Of course, if you call the cops and say "I have drugs!" then they'll arrive very quickly. The only drawback? They'll shoot up your house and kill your dogs (if you have any), and maybe even you.

Source?

I dont trust or even like cops, but I trust them a lot more then I do your wild accusations.

EDIT: By the way, showing me one instance doesnt equate proof. Lets see a pattern or some sort of statistics.

Never heard of home invasions?

Home invasions happen. They're rare enough that they usually make front page in local newspapers, though. And against a couple of armed criminals with guns who are invading your home, you'd be pretty useless even if you did have a gun. Ideally, weapon or not, you hide while they're stealing your possessions, call the police, and let them escape if the cops don't come in time. People are more important than property. And it's best to leave the recovery of yours to professionals.

Or, y'know, you could seed your yard with landmines and fill your house with laser tripwires that trigger machine guns. But landmines are expensive and hard to obtain legally, and laser tripwires malfunction often, and you run the risk of having your vicious attack Dobermans explode if you let them run around in the yard rather than taking them for walks.

Slightly off topic, but when did the word 'shooter' replace 'gunman'? I can't really say I come accross the term anywhere but here.

http://gunowners.org/sk0501.htm
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2002/12/police_nonresponse_times.html
http://gunowners.org/sk0504.htm
http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/05/02/police_fail_to_respo.php

Admittedly biased sources, but make of them what you will.

http://gunowners.org/sk0501.htm
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2002/12/police_nonresponse_times.html
http://gunowners.org/sk0504.htm
http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/05/02/police_fail_to_respo.php


Notice how, in all your articles, the police either arrived rather quickly, or when they failed to, an investigation was launched, showing that not showing up or taking a long time is not tolerated. Thus youre whole "OMG THE POLICE TAKE LONGER THEN THE PIZZA GUY!!!!" is utter bullshit.

Im not arguing about gun control. Just the insane notion that you need a gun to protect you from a bunch of crack addicts breaking into your house (because that happens all the time) that a gun would actually do anything (1 vs 5+) and that the cops would take hours to show up (lie).

EDIT: And one of them is from 1989!

Admittedly biased sources, but make of them what you will.

Biased is an understatement. Theyre man bites dog stories. Plain and simple.

I want to know what world people live in where the cops are this inept.
I think it's more about the world they live in where there seem to be armed gangsters lurking behind every corner, only waiting to rob good citizens at gun point or break into their homes or shoot them over $5 in a parking lot.

We recently had this discussion on GM and there's simply a dramatic difference between life in the US and life here. I live in Berlin, a city of 3.5 million people, in a neighborhood with high unemployment, many welfare recipients, many immigrants (which in this case means extremely high school drop out and unemployment rates, alienation from and disillusionment with the rest of society, and an often very volatile and violent male youth), and I have NEVER seen anyone with a gun, nor heard gun shots, nor seen anyone get shot, robbed, burgled, not even at knife point. The only times I've ever been afraid to walk alone in the middle of the night is when there's some drunk assholes around or if some guy looks like he's on the prey.

I'm not naive, I know that there are criminals who obtain guns illegally, it's just that most don't. Of course there have been shopkeepers shot to death by someone robbing their little convenience store, but these cases are few. I'm quite sure that most people involved in organized crime have illegal guns, but they keep their violence among themselves.

So yes, of course there is the theoretical chance that I'll get shot tomorrow in some supermarket robbery gone awry but that chance is really, really, really small. Nobody would ever think to get a gun to be ready to defend themselves in case it ever happened.

Guns are, in regards to everyday life here, an absolute non-topic.

So people will have to excuse me when the arms-race-mentality arguments of
"But the criminals are armed, so we have to be, too!" sounds just ridiculous to me.
My country isn't some quaint freak of nature where there's no crime and everybody is peaceful, so yes, while there are certainly many other factors at play, the fact remains that when we look at the US what we see is a society where gun violence begets more gun violence. Where arms bought for self-defense beget more arms needed for self-defense because everybody else has one so everbody else can shoot you. And all those criminals will be stealing your guns and then they have guns and so you have to get more guns. Ever thought about that nobody would be able to steal your frigging guns if you didn't have any? That nobody would feel the need to carry a gun to defend themselves if they weren't constantly surrounded by people with guns?

It's insane and crazy and a vicious cycle and doesn't make one iota of sense and I hope to God that we never become like that.

Slightly off topic, but when did the word 'shooter' replace 'gunman'? I can't really say I come accross the term anywhere but here.
Erm, if you're referring to my posts specifically that's only because I couldn't remember the proper word for the most part of today. <<

Not universal, but common enough. In the U.S., at least.

So you just chose to make a sweeping statement, having no idea of how the situation is in Ireland or Germany? I see...

So you just chose to make a sweeping statement, having no idea of how the situation is in Ireland or Germany? I see...

Or even that its that common in the US.

I think certian posters have watched too many action movies.
Maybe if I get a Walker Texas Ranger boxset I'll be able to roundhouse kick the home invaders to death.
Good luck with that. If you call the cops and then order a pizza, the pizza delivery man is more likely to arrive first. Assuming the cops even do arrive.
Actually, the nearest Garda Station is very close, though I don't think they have any armed officers. They'd have to come from a bit further. Blues and twos going, I'd give them 10 minutes or so. A pizza would take the better part of an hour, if I was lucky.
Never heard of home invasions?
Never heard of simple probability? Let me spell it out for you. A gang or armed men have many many more opportunities to kill you than you have to kill them. You will more than likely die if you get into a gun fight with them.
Slightly off topic, but when did the word 'shooter' replace 'gunman'? I can't really say I come accross the term anywhere but here.

I think gunman has implications of skill/competence. Shooter is more someone who can figure out what the trigger does and what end the bullets come out of.

I think gunman has implications of skill/competence. Shooter is more someone who can figure out what the trigger does and what end the bullets come out of.

Lee Harvey Osvald was apparently the shooter in the JFK-assassination, although some claim to have seen a second gunman on the grassy knoll...

Lee Harvey Osvald was apparently the shooter in the JFK-assassination, although some claim to have seen a second gunman on the grassy knoll...

http://meltyourfaceoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/tin-foil-hat.jpg

What if (theoretically speaking) a whole gang with guns invades your home?

I couldn't do anything, even if I had a gun.
Them, many guns. Me, one gun. Maybe some of them die, but sure me dies.

Is there? In cases like these? In Germany, or Europe for that matter?

In Italy it was, expecially when a psycho, cocaine-addicted guy (but rich, hey), who legally detained guns at his home, went into a killing spree and sniped from his balcony at pedestrians in a street in Milan, about three years ago iirc.

After some time, though, ALL media sided with Berlusconi and the focus suddenly shifted totally on "OMG criminal immigrant gypsy rapists niggers"! (though the statistics for violent crimes show a constant decrease in the last 15 years, but there you are. italian media suck like a vacuum cleaner).

... It's insane and crazy and a vicious cycle and doesn't make one iota of sense and I hope to God that we never become like that.

I'll give you the typical NRA answer.

"This might work in peaceful Europe. In the USA, instead, we have a long history of violence" (more or less, Charlton Heston said that to Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine).

...2500 years of wars in Europe (including 2 world wars, 3 if we count the Napoleonic wars, and various genocides) aren't violence enough?

I lived in Colorado at the time of the Columbine shootings. Words cannot express my sorrow and condolences. Some day we may learn a way to end alienation and disenfranchisement. May it be soon.

Why is it if someone shoots someone else the first thing gun control advocates ask is, was the gun legal yet when someone plows into a crowd with a truck going 80 the first question they ask isnt was his license current?

Why is it if someone shoots someone else the first thing gun control advocates ask is, was the gun legal yet when someone plows into a crowd with a truck going 80 the first question they ask isnt was his license current?

Because these conversations happened in your head.

if you outlaw guns you will take them out of the hands of the law-abiding and into the hands of the law-breakers.

if you outlaw guns you will take them out of the hands of the law-abiding and into the hands of the law-breakers.
Yes, that is true by definition.

If you make the use of something illegal, using that thing will be an illegal act.

It's a tautology.

It has come to my attention that there are those that do not believe that black gun markets do or would exist if firearms were banned. There is also seems to be a presupposition that guns, especially automatic firearms, are complex machines that require expesive equipment and a great deal of training and skill to produce. To those that hold these beliefs I'd just like to say, you are among the most stolid, imbecilic retards I have thankfully never had to lay eyes on. Anyone, anyone(!) with a basic understanding of chemistry - and by that I mean any pre-pubescent pyro who knows which cleaners to combine to make a firecracker - can make an explosive suitable for propelling a small projectile. Anyone who knows how to work fucking yahoo can find a wide variety of gun plans ranging from the easy to the difficult and the safe to the insanely dangerous. It's easier to make a Thompson knock-off than it is to make a bolt action rifle. Do you honestly think that all this information would simply vanish from the public domain if a globe spanning ban were enacted? How the fuck would the pigs enforce this without watching everyone's every fucking move? If you can make a pipe-bomb, you can probably make a fully-automatic gun. I'm not saying it'll be accurate but if all you want to do is spray bullets then accuracy doesn't matter much. Guns will not disapear because you want them to and humanity will not change when you try (and fail) to take away one of the many weapons that we use on one another.

Don't believe me? Fine. Ban guns. You'd probably find someone like me on the streets of Minneapolis or New York within a month making more money than God supplying all the gangs with everything from auto-pistols to RPGs. Black markets are real and they grow when you ban something like drugs or guns or sex.

Yes, that is true by definition.

If you make the use of something illegal, using that thing will be an illegal act.

It's a tautology.

And it's also boring. How many times did we hear that in debates about gun control? Still, being a tautology, doesn't add an epsilon to knowledge. Zzz.

Don't believe me? Fine. Ban guns. You'd probably find someone like me on the streets of Minneapolis or New York within a month making more money than God supplying all the gangs with everything from auto-pistols to RPGs.

I suspect they'd just be big firecrackers in a tube than true RPGs. I've looked up the chemical composition of a few military grade explosives like RDX, and the manufacturing process isn't something you can get around to with a home setup.

Don't believe me? Fine. Ban guns. You'd probably find someone like me on the streets of Minneapolis or New York within a month making more money than God supplying all the gangs with everything from auto-pistols to RPGs. Black markets are real and they grow when you ban something like drugs or guns or sex.

You know what's kind of interesting about this?
How many shooting sprees (to keep with the current example) have you heard of where the shooter used a home-made gun? In the Western world, that is?

The gun in this case was technically stolen from a legal gun owner.
Germany has very strict gun-control laws (no outright ban, but getting rather close to it), and yet the person nobody there went and build their own guns.
In the two cases ever of school shootings, they used regular guns.

You know what's kind of interesting about this?
How many shooting sprees (to keep with the current example) have you heard of where the shooter used a home-made gun? In the Western world, that is?

The gun in this case was technically stolen from a legal gun owner.
Germany has very strict gun-control laws (no outright ban, but getting rather close to it), and yet the person nobody there went and build their own guns.
In the two cases ever of school shootings, they used regular guns.

there is also this thing called smuggling.
Or just missing numbers from what was supposed to go to the military.

An outright ban and people lose any reason for moderation in gun use. because if any gun can get you tossed in prison you might as well make it a full auto with hollow points.

Not to mention the silliness of destroying a very good industry within the US during a recession.

No, people are evil. Guns are just peices of metal, that if left alone, cannot hurt anyone. Once you put it in the hands of a mad (wo)man or curious child, you could get hurt. But on the question if they should be banned or not...idk...

there is also this thing called smuggling.
Or just missing numbers from what was supposed to go to the military.

An outright ban and people lose any reason for moderation in gun use. because if any gun can get you tossed in prison you might as well make it a full auto with hollow points.

Not to mention the silliness of destroying a very good industry within the US during a recession.

Again, can you then explain why in the two school shootings Germany ever had, legal guns were used?
Surely if illegal guns were so easy to get, there would be shitloads of them around?

Apparently, the guy was also a CS gamer.

Expect a new debate about banning violent video games any day now.

Again, can you then explain why in the two school shootings Germany ever had, legal guns were used?
Surely if illegal guns were so easy to get, there would be shitloads of them around?

don't know about Germany there was plenty in Korea.
and they for practical purposes only have sea borders. (nothing gets in from the north.) and they have guns laws that are more harsh then Germany's (total outlawing because they have no history of hunting, with firearms)

Help me settle a bet with a friend, if you could be so kind: can anybody name a school shooting in which the shooter was female?

Help me settle a bet with a friend, if you could be so kind: can anybody name a school shooting in which the shooter was female?

I had been thinking along the same lines yesterday. I can't think of any.

don't know about Germany there was plenty in Korea.
and they for practical purposes only have sea borders. (nothing gets in from the north.) and they have guns laws that are more harsh then Germany's (total outlawing because they have no history of hunting, with firearms)

There was plenty what in Korea?

It has come to my attention that there are those that do not believe that black gun markets do or would exist if firearms were banned. There is also seems to be a presupposition that guns, especially automatic firearms, are complex machines that require expesive equipment and a great deal of training and skill to produce. To those that hold these beliefs I'd just like to say, you are among the most stolid, imbecilic retards I have thankfully never had to lay eyes on. Anyone, anyone(!) with a basic understanding of chemistry - and by that I mean any pre-pubescent pyro who knows which cleaners to combine to make a firecracker - can make an explosive suitable for propelling a small projectile. Anyone who knows how to work fucking yahoo can find a wide variety of gun plans ranging from the easy to the difficult and the safe to the insanely dangerous. It's easier to make a Thompson knock-off than it is to make a bolt action rifle. Do you honestly think that all this information would simply vanish from the public domain if a globe spanning ban were enacted? How the fuck would the pigs enforce this without watching everyone's every fucking move? If you can make a pipe-bomb, you can probably make a fully-automatic gun. I'm not saying it'll be accurate but if all you want to do is spray bullets then accuracy doesn't matter much. Guns will not disapear because you want them to and humanity will not change when you try (and fail) to take away one of the many weapons that we use on one another.

Don't believe me? Fine. Ban guns. You'd probably find someone like me on the streets of Minneapolis or New York within a month making more money than God supplying all the gangs with everything from auto-pistols to RPGs. Black markets are real and they grow when you ban something like drugs or guns or sex.
Meth is illegal even though you can cook it in your kitchen.

Now, I'm not a fan of the "war on drugs," but I'd be interested to know if you think the solution to the meth problem is to make it legal and widely available to anybody who wants some meth.

There was plenty what in Korea?

yeah, every time i went looking for a new pot the dealer would assume because I was American i knew everything about guns. He would then have me look at their collection.

Given pot is a lot more restricted substance in Korea then in Europe or even the US. so in retrospect society wise the pot dealer is like a heroin dealer in the US.
(far better to use over the counter pain pills)

but i would say gun dealers are about as common as pot dealers there.

its the black market after all its not like you will find reliable statistics, they tend not to advertise their sales.

yeah, every time i went looking for a new pot the dealer would assume because I was American i knew everything about guns. He would then have me look at their collection.

Given pot is a lot more restricted substance in Korea then in Europe or even the US. so in retrospect society wise the pot dealer is like a heroin dealer in the US.
(far better to use over the counter pain pills)

but i would say gun dealers are about as common as pot dealers there.

its the black market after all its not like you will find reliable statistics, they tend not to advertise their sales.

I'm struggling... there was plenty pot in Korea, and that's related to gun crimes and shootings in Germany how? :confused:

I'm struggling... there was plenty pot in Korea, and that's related to gun crimes and shootings in Germany how? :confused:

I think he was saying that GUNS are as easy to get in Korea as pot is in America.

I think he was saying that GUNS are as easy to get in Korea as pot is in America.

Ah, ok.
Well, it would seem that guns aren't that difficult to get legally in Germany, either, which to my mind is a big problem indeed.

I'm struggling... there was plenty pot in Korea, and that's related to gun crimes and shootings in Germany how? :confused:

sorry its early let me figure out what my point was.
okay. here is the deal you make something illegal you cut it off from regulation.
The vast majority of people if give the choice between illegal and legal firearm ownership will choose legal firearm ownership even if it means jumping trough hoops. You require registration, now you know most of the gun owners, and if their teenage sun starts getting weird you can watch him. Maybe tell the dad to change the combo on his gun safe.
Not to mention with a complete ban, you throw out the ability to educate gun owners about how to keep their guns safe from their children among other things.

Ah, ok.
Well, it would seem that guns aren't that difficult to get legally in Germany, either, which to my mind is a big problem indeed.

Gun control is a topic I don't often speak about, mainly because I don't get one entire side of the discussion. It's not that I'm anti-gun, it's just that I've never wanted to own a gun.

I've lived my entire life without a gun. I've lived primarily in big cities, often in "bad neighborhoods," and I've never had a gun or wanted one. The closest I've come to wanting a gun was when I was walking down Bar Row one night and some creepy guys were hollering at me and I begged the heavens to send me a flamethrower.

So I have to admit that I simply don't understand the perspective of people who want guns. I can listen to all their very pragmatic arguments, and I can cerebrally understand what they are saying, but deep down I just don't get it. Unless you're living in the wilderness or a ranch or some shit and you need a gun to feed yourself or do your job, I just don't see the point.

Meth is illegal even though you can cook it in your kitchen.

Now, I'm not a fan of the "war on drugs," but I'd be interested to know if you think the solution to the meth problem is to make it legal and widely available to anybody who wants some meth.

the argument I have heard is you make it legal to produce with a license. then you Tax it, and use the tax money to fund rehab programs.

sorry its early let me figure out what my point was.
okay. here is the deal you make something illegal you cut it off from regulation.
The vast majority of people if give the choice between illegal and legal firearm ownership will choose legal firearm ownership even if it means jumping trough hoops. You require registration, now you know most of the gun owners, and if their teenage sun starts getting weird you can watch him. Maybe tell the dad to change the combo on his gun safe.
Not to mention with a complete ban, you throw out the ability to educate gun owners about how to keep their guns safe from their children among other things.

Ok, which begs the question who was actually asking for a full ban?
I was talking of control, not banning, if I remember correctly.

Help me settle a bet with a friend, if you could be so kind: can anybody name a school shooting in which the shooter was female?

list of a bunch of school violence incidents.
http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence04-05.html

not certain if a gun incident is involved. a skimmed and saw a few female knifing.

Ok, which begs the question who was actually asking for a full ban?
I was talking of control, not banning, if I remember correctly.

its early in the morning, i cam in mid convo my bad.

though the issue in this case might not be control. they could have perhaps shared the info with school administrators and what not.
It might be more along the lines making sure all agencies shared the info and used it to prevent this.

list of a bunch of school violence incidents.
http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence04-05.html

not certain if a gun incident is involved. a skimmed and saw a few female knifing.

Thanks for the link.

So far, in the "shootings resulting in death" section, no female perps, and in the "shootings not resulting in death" I've only found one:

"A 17-year-old female high school student accidentally shot herself in the forearm with a gun when she reached into her purse around 10:00am while in a classroom. No one was injured."

Gun control is a topic I don't often speak about, mainly because I don't get one entire side of the discussion. It's not that I'm anti-gun, it's just that I've never wanted to own a gun.

I've lived my entire life without a gun. I've lived primarily in big cities, often in "bad neighborhoods," and I've never had a gun or wanted one. The closest I've come to wanting a gun was when I was walking down Bar Row one night and some creepy guys were hollering at me and I begged the heavens to send me a flamethrower.

So I have to admit that I simply don't understand the perspective of people who want guns. I can listen to all their very pragmatic arguments, and I can cerebrally understand what they are saying, but deep down I just don't get it. Unless you're living in the wilderness or a ranch or some shit and you need a gun to feed yourself or do your job, I just don't see the point.

I'm pretty much the same.
I've got the additional barrier to understanding said desire as I come from a culture in which guns are practically not existent. I know they are there now, some of the articles concerned with the school shooting mentioned that there are around 10 mil. legal guns in Germany, and about the same number of illegal ones. That's roughly 1 gun for every 4 citizens.
But they're not obvious. A lot of them would be rifles owned by registered hunters, or simply sports equipment.
I've never seen a shop selling guns in my life. And these days, I live in a country where even policemen are not normally armed.

So the whole sense of needing to protect oneself against other people with guns is... well, quite lost on me, to be honest.
All I can do is simply accept that in the US, there is a large group of people who, for whatever reason, do feel that way.

its early in the morning, i cam in mid convo my bad.

though the issue in this case might not be control. they could have perhaps shared the info with school administrators and what not.
It might be more along the lines making sure all agencies shared the info and used it to prevent this.

They are investigating his father for having left the one gun unlocked.
But there's the thing, isn't it? You can't survey people in their houses to make sure they observe common sense safety regulations such as locking away the guns from kids.

Somebody suggested that for people belonging to shooting clubs, it should be made mandatory to keep all their guns under lock and key at the clubs themselves, and not be allowed to take them home.

Thanks for the link.

So far, in the "shootings resulting in death" section, no female perps, and in the "shootings not resulting in death" I've only found one:

"A 17-year-old female high school student accidentally shot herself in the forearm with a gun when she reached into her purse around 10:00am while in a classroom. No one was injured."

i am broadly generalizing but women might not be the type to go randomly shoot the place up. They might go for someone specifically. that's what one of the girls did back in sophomore year i ended up in juvenile justice alternative ed.

i am broadly generalizing but women might not be the type to go randomly shoot the place up.
A whole lot of school shootings (with male shooters) aren't random. The one that this OP is talking about was not random; the perp specifically singled out female victims to kill.

But yes, obviously it is the case that males are a whole helluva lot more likely to engage in gun violence.

They are investigating his father for having left the one gun unlocked.
But there's the thing, isn't it? You can't survey people in their houses to make sure they observe common sense safety regulations such as locking away the guns from kids.

Somebody suggested that for people belonging to shooting clubs, it should be made mandatory to keep all their guns under lock and key at the clubs themselves, and not be allowed to take them home.

well i am certain he was giving off warning signs. and a school official calling saying hey your teenager is acting strange and our records indicate your a gun owner, maybe you should redouble your efforts to keep your weapons secure for a awhile. He might be able to put on the I am okay face with his dad, but i bet he couldn't keep it on all day at school.

i am broadly generalizing but women might not be the type to go randomly shoot the place up. They might go for someone specifically. that's what one of the girls did back in sophomore year i ended up in juvenile justice alternative ed.

The number of female murderers (with and without guns) is generally significantly lower than that of male ones.
A former colleague of mine did a paper on the subject in college, she was rather fascinated by the psychological differences underlying this.

The number of female murderers (with and without guns) is generally significantly lower than that of male ones.
A former colleague of mine did a paper on the subject in college, she was rather fascinated by the psychological differences underlying this.

i am not a criminal justice/psychology/sociology major, so I can only speculate.

well i am certain he was giving off warning signs. and a school official calling saying hey your teenager is acting strange and our records indicate your a gun owner, maybe you should redouble your efforts to keep your weapons secure for a awhile. He might be able to put on the I am okay face with his dad, but i bet he couldn't keep it on all day at school.

From what I'm reading in the press so far, there were no warning signs whatsoever.
Most of his former class mates were extremely astonished that he did that, as were his teachers and some neighbours.

I am seriously annoyed that even though the death aren't even burried there is already assigning blame to all of the favorite subjects DESPITE not knowing whether it is actually relevant. I could also use this as a time to demand men being excluded from higher education, it'd make as much sense as demanding bans for video games and more funding for schools, but these two demands I heard already on the radio yesterday. Have people no SHAME?

From what I'm reading in the press so far, there were no warning signs whatsoever.
Most of his former class mates were extremely astonished that he did that, as were his teachers and some neighbours.

then again if you did know/suspect would you want to admit to it in the papers and become a social outcast who could have prevented the mess?

I could also use this as a time to demand men being excluded from higher education, it'd make as much sense as demanding bans for video games
Statistically speaking, it would make a lot more sense to argue that men should be banned from schools. Only a minority of school shooters played videogames, but so far we haven't been able to find a single school shooter who wasn't male.

I wonder how the reverse statistics play out. Like, which is a better predictor of future violent behavior: playing videogames, or being male?

then again if you did know/suspect would you want to admit to it in the papers and become a social outcast who could have prevented the mess?

Not sure... I remember when the shooting at Columbine happened, people were quick to point out that the guys had been loners, that other students thought they were weird, that they got picked on, that they were isolated and isolating themselves.

In this case, the consensus seems to be that he was a very nice person, well-liked, but kept to himself a little. Nothing at all out of the ordinary.

I'm curious if we'll ever find out what made him snap... so far, there's extremely little to go on, apparently.

Not sure... I remember when the shooting at Columbine happened, people were quick to point out that the guys had been loners, that other students thought they were weird, that they got picked on, that they were isolated and isolating themselves.

In this case, the consensus seems to be that he was a very nice person, well-liked, but kept to himself a little. Nothing at all out of the ordinary.

I'm curious if we'll ever find out what made him snap... so far, there's extremely little to go on, apparently.

yeah the columbine kids wore dusters in the summer. (not trench coats).
So of course everyone thought they were crazy.
I mean everyone though i was crazy for wearing trench coats everyday in highschool too. and my summer was Texas weather.

Statistically speaking, it would make a lot more sense to argue that men should be banned from schools. Only a minority of school shooters played videogames, but so far we haven't been able to find a single school shooter who wasn't male.

I wonder how the reverse statistics play out. Like, which is a better predictor of future violent behavior: playing videogames, or being male?...We should ban males from being educated to....help prevent violence? ...Hm.

...We should ban males from being educated to....help prevent violence? ...Hm.

or have women only and male only schools.
that way our evil male violence wont affect peaceful women.

...We should ban males from being educated to....help prevent violence? ...Hm.

My point was more about the ridiculousness of blaming things like videogames for school shootings.

To put it another way:

Only a minority of school shooters played videogames, yet people often rush to blame those videogames for school shootings. At the same time, nearly 100% of school shooters are male, yet those same people will react with horror and shock if it is suggested that maleness caused the school shootings. Hence, those people are especially silly.

or have women only and male only schools.
that way our evil male violence wont affect peaceful women.
Because nothing stops violence quite like segregation, amirite?

My point was more about the ridiculousness of blaming things like videogames for school shootings.

To put it another way:

Only a minority of school shooters played videogames, yet people often rush to blame those videogames for school shootings. At the same time, nearly 100% of school shooters are male, yet those same people will react with horror and shock if it is suggested that maleness caused the school shootings. Hence, those people are especially silly.Will they? I've never actually seen, or heard of, anyone reacting with shock and horror when it's suggested that females are generally the more peaceful gender, that female influence results in less violent tendencies, etc. Heck, it's one of the more popular sociological theses out there, and not limited to hardcore feminists.

Because nothing stops violence quite like segregation, amirite?

Hmmm, no, I suspect a better way to do so is strip out all forms of adrenaline generation from the human body. It might do some funny things, but violence is likely to drop. :tongue:

My point was more about the ridiculousness of blaming things like videogames for school shootings.

To put it another way:

Only a minority of school shooters played videogames, yet people often rush to blame those videogames for school shootings. At the same time, nearly 100% of school shooters are male, yet those same people will react with horror and shock if it is suggested that maleness caused the school shootings. Hence, those people are especially silly.I know. But the idea does actually have a little merit. Like you said, you haven't found any female school shootings yet, have you?

Hmmm, no, I suspect a better way to do so is strip out all forms of adrenaline generation from the human body. It might do some funny things, but violence is likely to drop. :tongue:

I got a better idea. Everyone comes to school butt naked. Require see through back packs and binders as such as well.
the added benefit teachers would be willing to work for less money.

Seems there were some warning signs.Linky (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5894847.ece)

The 17-year-old who went on a shooting spree in his former high school in southern Germany yesterday had warned on an internet chatroom the night before that he was going to carry out the attack because "everybody is laughing at me"...


...Mr Rech revealed today that Kretschmer had received treatment last year at a psychiatric clinic in Winnenden...

I just love how computer games gets top billing, under describing him...
a computer game and gun enthusiast

I got a better idea. Everyone comes to school butt naked. Require see through back packs and binders as such as well.
the added benefit teachers would be willing to work for less money.Sadly, the idealised world of anime- and porn-fiction does not describe the reality of schoolgirls. As such, I'm strongly opposed to this idea.

On the other hand, it could end the crimes against fashion perpetrated by a significant portion of students (Males and females alike). Hum...

Sadly, the idealised world of anime- and porn-fiction does not describe the reality of schoolgirls. As such, I'm strongly opposed to this idea.

On the other hand, it could end the crimes against fashion perpetrated by a significant portion of students (Males and females alike). Hum...

if we factor in a mandatory exercise and hygiene time in school we could get results that would be very nice indeed.

Help me settle a bet with a friend, if you could be so kind: can anybody name a school shooting in which the shooter was female?
Brenda Ann Spencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Spencer), the (in)famous "I hate mondays" school shooter from back in 1979.

Lurie Dann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann) who killed two students in 1988 could possibly count as well.

That being said, it's clear that the cases involving female attackers is the exception to the rule, the vast minority of cases. Males are overrepresented in... well, just about all violent crimes, I believe.

Good luck with that. If you call the cops and then order a pizza, the pizza delivery man is more likely to arrive first. Assuming the cops even do arrive.

In this case, the police apparently responded within 2 minutes.

9:33 a.m. : The police receive the first emergency call from a student who is calling from his mobile phone. "We could hardly understand what he said," a police spokesman would later say. "You could hear screaming in the background."

9:35 a.m.: According to police, three officers with a swat team arrive at the scene within two minutes of the first emergency call. They enter the school and can still hear shots being fired. As they approach the stairs to the second floor, they believe they see the perpetrator. Tim K. fires at them and flees the scene. While exiting, he shoots two more female teachers.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,612780,00.html

I know. But the idea does actually have a little merit. Like you said, you haven't found any female school shootings yet, have you?
Put it this way:

I think it's stupid to shy away from examining gender as a factor at this point. Whenever somebody tries to bring up the question of WHY males are so disproportionately likely to do this kind of thing, there's always somebody who has to rush in to point out that men get hurt by violence too! And women are violent too! And it's probably biological because males just can't help killing stuff cause that's what cavemen did! And the issue gets derailed and nothing is ever accomplished.

got to admit police have revamped how they respond to school shootings since columbine.

Put it this way:

I think it's stupid to shy away from examining gender as a factor at this point. Whenever somebody tries to bring up the question of WHY males are so disproportionately likely to do this kind of thing, there's always somebody who has to rush in to point out that men get hurt by violence too! And women are violent too! And it's probably biological because males just can't help killing stuff cause that's what cavemen did! And the issue gets derailed and nothing is ever accomplished.Do you think there's a reason men seem to be more violent than women? I'm honestly curious. (I don't mean to sound condescending, or anything. I'm just trying to follow along your train of thought. It's slightly difficult this early in the morning.)

Do you think there's a reason men seem to be more violent than women?

We just get more shooting practice.

Do you think there's a reason men seem to be more violent than women? I'm honestly curious. (I don't mean to sound condescending, or anything. I'm just trying to follow along your train of thought. It's slightly difficult this early in the morning.)
Absolutely. While it is possible that there are neurochemical factors involved, I believe that the main problem is socialization. I can't speak to how it works in other cultures, but in my culture physical aggressiveness is viewed as an inherent part of what it means to be masculine, and violent behavior from males is generally either tolerated or encouraged while the same behavior is strongly discouraged if shown by females.

Some of this is gradually changing, but in some ways it's changing for the worst. It is increasingly okay for us to encourage girls to be more like boys (i.e. more aggressive, more physical, etc.) but it is absolutely never okay to encourage a boy to be more like a girl. Any effort to make boys more like girls (in any area of life) is viewed as a Very Bad Thing. Which means that we aren't allowed to look at this situation and say, "Hmm, we're doing a pretty good job of teaching girls not to be violent. Why not apply those same lessons to boys and see if it helps?" Because if we do that then we're "sissifying" boys, or castrating males, or some other such horrible nasty rotten thing that can't be tolerated because then the communists win.

Absolutely. While it is possible that there are neurochemical factors involved, I believe that the main problem is socialization. I can't speak to how it works in other cultures, but in my culture physical aggressiveness is viewed as an inherent part of what it means to be masculine, and violent behavior from males is generally either tolerated or encouraged while the same behavior is strongly discouraged if shown by females.

Some of this is gradually changing, but in some ways it's changing for the worst. It's okay for us to encourage girls to be more like boys (i.e. more aggressive, more physical, etc.) but it is absolutely never okay to encourage a boy to be more like a girl. Any effort to make boys more like girls (in any area of life) is viewed as a Very Bad Thing. Which means that we aren't allowed to look at this situation and say, "Hmm, we're doing a pretty good job of teaching girls not to be violent. Why not apply those same lessons to boys and see if it helps?" Because if we do that then we're "sissifying" boys, or castrating males, or some other such horrible nasty rotten thing that can't be tolerated because then the communists win.So I was sort of following you, yay me. For the record, I agree with you. It's okay to encourage women to be more masculine, but wrong to encourage men to be more effeminate? Some kind of double standard going on there, hm? (I'm assuming we're from the same general area of the world.)

So I was sort of following you, yay me. For the record, I agree with you. It's okay to encourage women to be more masculine, but wrong to encourage men to be more effeminate? Some kind of double standard going on there, hm? (I'm assuming we're from the same general area of the world.)
The problem is that it's still viewed as worse to be a girl than to be a boy. With that perspective, it makes sense that girls would be encouraged to be more like boys...that's moving up in the world! But encouraging boys to be like girls would be a step down.

Girls who aspire to be more "masculine" are either encouraged because they're trying to improve their lot in life, or they're yelled at for trying to move above their station (flip sides of the same coin). Meanwhile, boys who aspire to be more feminine are simply derided because what kind of loser would want to move DOWN the social ladder?

The problem is that it's still viewed as worse to be a girl than to be a boy. With that perspective, it makes sense that girls would be encouraged to be more like boys...that's moving up in the world! But encouraging boys to be like girls would be a step down.

Girls who aspire to be more "masculine" are either encouraged because they're trying to improve their lot in life, or they're yelled at for trying to move above their station (flip sides of the same coin). Meanwhile, boys who aspire to be more feminine are simply derided because what kind of loser would want to move DOWN the social ladder?I understand your point. Though it does make me wonder if I'll live long enough to ever see any kind of real equality between people. My bet is on "probably not".

Help me settle a bet with a friend, if you could be so kind: can anybody name a school shooting in which the shooter was female?
Brenda Ann.....
Brenda Ann Spencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Spencer), the (in)famous "I hate mondays" school shooter from back in 1979.

Damn you, Kninja Lawyer!

Damn you, Kninja Lawyer!Buu-
What?

Buu-
What?

Inside joke. You wouldn't get it.

Inside joke. You wouldn't get it.Obviously.

I just found a really interesting post on another forum regarding the role of guns in mass murders like the recent ones.

Roughly translated, it reads :

On the one hand, shootings like this aren't exactly a recent phenomenon, on the other hand there seems to be a striking pattern to them.
They are in almost any case connected to firearms, and in almost all cases the victims are defenceless, unsuspecting larger groups of people as you would find in schools, which anyone can enter whenever they please.
And in my view, there isn't necessarily a connection with frustration about the school itself forming the basis of a shooting, other aspects of character may well play into it.

Ultimately, it's about having ultimate power over complete defencelessness, and this complete and total power seems to be of some significance for the shooter - the excess almost always ends with the death of the gun man, be it by being shot by security forces or suicide. The suicide seems to be a consciously planned part of the action, therefore.

Now, it is well imaginable to cause terrible damage with a petrol can or an axe from the hardware store, and to cause serious injuries or even deaths; but the use of a weapon that was designed with the sole purpose of killing seems to be quite central to what is going on i nthe head of the gun man.
Additionally, there's the increased chance of escape or resistance when faced with anything that isn't a firearm, and therefore the chance of failing to reach the same level of harm and destruction. And this harm and destruction seems to be the aim of the deed, it's no cry for help or a warning. ...

The gun offeres the option to plan the action for a long time, but to act spontaneously.
Building a bomb requires a lot of logistical effort, as well as having to mentally picture the situation in a lot more detail. And apart from this, the "work" would be done by the bomb, not by the perpetrator himself. The experience of murderous frenzy would turn out to be much reduced. Other utensils, such as knives, swords, etc. can be compromised by the reactions of the victims.

For these reasons, the efficiency of firearms in connections with murder rampages plays a central role, and making them less accessible belongs onto every agenda looking for preventative measures, even though massacres like this one can never be completely avoided.

The full text (in German) can be found here (http://forum.spiegel.de/showpost.php?p=3468667&postcount=91).

Personally, I think this is a very apt analysis of the situation.

In this case, the police apparently responded within 2 minutes.
I wish I could get a pizza that quickly
I just found a really interesting post on another forum regarding the role of guns in mass murders like the recent ones.

Roughly translated, it reads :

On the one hand, shootings like this aren't exactly a recent phenomenon, on the other hand there seems to be a striking pattern to them.
They are in almost any case connected to firearms, and in almost all cases the victims are defenceless, unsuspecting larger groups of people as you would find in schools, which anyone can enter whenever they please.
And in my view, there isn't necessarily a connection with frustration about the school itself forming the basis of a shooting, other aspects of character may well play into it.

Ultimately, it's about having ultimate power over complete defencelessness, and this complete and total power seems to be of some significance for the shooter - the excess almost always ends with the death of the gun man, be it by being shot by security forces or suicide. The suicide seems to be a consciously planned part of the action, therefore.

Now, it is well imaginable to cause terrible damage with a petrol can or an axe from the hardware store, and to cause serious injuries or even deaths; but the use of a weapon that was designed with the sole purpose of killing seems to be quite central to what is going on i nthe head of the gun man.
Additionally, there's the increased chance of escape or resistance when faced with anything that isn't a firearm, and therefore the chance of failing to reach the same level of harm and destruction. And this harm and destruction seems to be the aim of the deed, it's no cry for help or a warning. ...

The gun offeres the option to plan the action for a long time, but to act spontaneously.
Building a bomb requires a lot of logistical effort, as well as having to mentally picture the situation in a lot more detail. And apart from this, the "work" would be done by the bomb, not by the perpetrator himself. The experience of murderous frenzy would turn out to be much reduced. Other utensils, such as knives, swords, etc. can be compromised by the reactions of the victims.

For these reasons, the efficiency of firearms in connections with murder rampages plays a central role, and making them less accessible belongs onto every agenda looking for preventative measures, even though massacres like this one can never be completely avoided.

The full text (in German) can be found here (http://forum.spiegel.de/showpost.php?p=3468667&postcount=91).

Personally, I think this is a very apt analysis of the situation.

Very good point.

Gun control is a topic I don't often speak about, mainly because I don't get one entire side of the discussion. It's not that I'm anti-gun, it's just that I've never wanted to own a gun.

I've lived my entire life without a gun. I've lived primarily in big cities, often in "bad neighborhoods," and I've never had a gun or wanted one. The closest I've come to wanting a gun was when I was walking down Bar Row one night and some creepy guys were hollering at me and I begged the heavens to send me a flamethrower.

So I have to admit that I simply don't understand the perspective of people who want guns. I can listen to all their very pragmatic arguments, and I can cerebrally understand what they are saying, but deep down I just don't get it. Unless you're living in the wilderness or a ranch or some shit and you need a gun to feed yourself or do your job, I just don't see the point.

Target shooting is a lot more fun, as well as a lot more accurate, when you use a firearm to propel the bullet versus throwing the bullets with your arm. Personally, I'd love to get a shotgun next. As I hear it, skeet/trap/clay target shooting is a blast.

Very good point.

Alternately, if the shooters like picking on the defenseless, as that seems to indicate, we could simply not go way out of our way to make people defenseless.

Target shooting is a lot more fun, as well as a lot more accurate, when you use a firearm to propel the bullet versus throwing the bullets with your arm.

One of the many reasons I enjoy paintball.

got to admit police have revamped how they respond to school shootings since columbine.

In Germany? Or the US?

In Germany? Or the US?

US. part of the issue with columbine is it took awhile to get swat in place. the last example swat was on the scene within 5 minutes of the call.

One of the many reasons I enjoy paintball.

I tinker too much to enjoy playing paintball very often. Right now, my B2K4 is sitting in a box, uncompleted after a Blue Forks Design T-1 trayless upgrade. I need a board (I want a Chaos board, as they're tiny), I need hose barbs for my solenoid, I need a wiring harness with PDS, and I need to solder the battery holder and solenoid to the wiring harness.

The only tinkering I'd be doing with a firearm is cleaning it.

Brenda Ann.....

Damn you, Kninja Lawyer!
:salute: http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-hehe.gif

Inside joke. You wouldn't get it.
He lacks the proper security clearance?? :eek2:

Alternately, if the shooters like picking on the defenseless, as that seems to indicate, we could simply not go way out of our way to make people defenseless.

Does such incidents happen so frequently that a general arming of the populace is warranted?

I suspect they'd just be big firecrackers in a tube than true RPGs. I've looked up the chemical composition of a few military grade explosives like RDX, and the manufacturing process isn't something you can get around to with a home setup.
Stronger than a firework, weaker than hexogen, in the ballpark of TNT. I designed a single-shot recoiless rifle/rocket combo in HS that, if my physics and chemistry texts were accurate, would easily total a mid-sized car. People are fragile creatures, it doesn't take a hell of a lot of force or precise application of force to kill. My point is that the UK gun ban hasn't stopped the likes of Luty from designing and building and bragging about their homemade guns so why would it stop the entrepreneurial from doing the same and going a step or two further?

Meth is illegal even though you can cook it in your kitchen.

Now, I'm not a fan of the "war on drugs," but I'd be interested to know if you think the solution to the meth problem is to make it legal and widely available to anybody who wants some meth.
Yes. Yes I believe that the correct way of dealing with drugs is to legallize them and allow people to use them for medicinal and recreational purposes. If they fuck up their lives and their bodies then tough luck, they already do that with alcohol and tobbaco, why not meth, pot, coke and heroin? Banning booze made men like Capone rich because people wanted their hooch and were willing to pay through the nose for sub-standard product. If you want to fuck up society, ban something and force it underground.

*Sigh*

When are they going to start giving guns to teachers so that things like this can't go on for so long?

*Sigh*

When are they going to start giving guns to teachers so that things like this can't go on for so long?

Teachers with guns would result in a lot more dead kids methinks :p

Teachers with guns would result in a lot more dead kids methinks :p

I just wish that I could have been there with my rifle. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, and that sick fuck is dead.

Teachers with guns would result in a lot more dead kids methinks :p
"I missed that last quiz because I, uh, didn't come that day. When can I make it up?"

I just wish that I could have been there with my rifle. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, and that sick fuck is dead.

So is it the thrilling idea of killing another human that leads you to conjure up this fantasy, or is it more of a desperate desire to be percieved as a heroic saviour?

*Sigh*

When are they going to start giving guns to teachers so that things like this can't go on for so long?
I hardly think the taxpayer will ever go for training teachers to be teachers AND marksmen. Any ideas that might work in the real world?
I just wish that I could have been there with my rifle. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, and that sick fuck is dead.

Still haven't got that real world thing quite right, eh? If you were there, with a rifle, shooting at someone, then the Polizei would very efficiently kill you before you could kill anyone else.

One of the many reasons I enjoy paintball.

Out of curiosity, what's the average range you get out of paintball marker without it deviating from the target much? No matter how I adjust the pressure settings, I can't seem to get anything better than a drift of up to 2 feet at a range of 75 feet.

I just wish that I could have been there with my rifle. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, and that sick fuck is dead.
Because High School teachers are all trained marksmen. I know that mine were. Allow me to introduce Mr. Clark of 11th Grade Chemistry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullseye_(comics))

I wish that these assholes would skip part a (kill innocent people) and go straight to part B (eat revolver).

So is it the thrilling idea of killing another human that leads you to conjure up this fantasy, or is it more of a desperate desire to be percieved as a heroic saviour?
I love the feel of grain
The screams of a man in pain
Blood coming down like rain showering me
That ever-lasting thrill
During the final kill
Body dumped in a landfill
Got off scott-free...

Alternately, if the shooters like picking on the defenseless, as that seems to indicate, we could simply not go way out of our way to make people defenseless.

Right... so you're suggesting easy access to guns for all school children? Seriously?

Right... so you're suggesting easy access to guns for all school children? Seriously?

Not at all, but we used to have a middle school principal here that wore a gun on his hip, and now that he's retired, they keep a police officer on grounds during the entirety of the day.

They also added an officer to each of the rest of the schools, too.

So is it the thrilling idea of killing another human that leads you to conjure up this fantasy, or is it more of a desperate desire to be percieved as a heroic saviour?

Perhaps, I just wish that I could personally have put an end to that massacre.

Perhaps, I just wish that I could personally have put an end to that massacre.

Aw, I'm sorry. Maybe you get lucky and there will be a school shooting in your area soon.

I hardly think the taxpayer will ever go for training teachers to be teachers AND marksmen. Any ideas that might work in the real world?

I would totally go for it. It would be a cheap, one time investment to have a gun safe in the principle's office. With bright orange Kevlar jackets for the teachers so everybody knows not to shoot them. You could even have the local police department offer free qualifications for teachers who want to be armed. Anybody who argues that this would be an overcomplicated expensive mess clearly doesn't understand the simple details of such a plan.


Still haven't got that real world thing quite right, eh? If you were there, with a rifle, shooting at someone, then the Polizei would very efficiently kill you before you could kill anyone else.

Maybe the Polizei would shoot me, but the local police in Georgia, who know that a large number of people here have rifles, probably wouldn't unless I aimed at them. You know, the police response time in some areas here is about 20-30 minutes.

Because High School teachers are all trained marksmen. I know that mine were. Allow me to introduce Mr. Clark of 11th Grade Chemistry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullseye_(comics))

Two of my professors are members of the local gun club.

Aw, I'm sorry. Maybe you get lucky and there will be a school shooting in your area soon.

Do you think that me wanting to shoot this guy makes me just as sick-minded as him? Because I want to shoot someone who is attacking a defenseless community and murdering kids?

Do you think that me wanting to shoot this guy makes me just as sick-minded as him? Because I want to shoot someone who is attacking a defenseless community and murdering kids?
I just wish that I could have been there with my rifle. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, and that sick fuck is dead.
Perhaps, I just wish that I could personally have put an end to that massacre.
You're awfully big on the "want"s and "wish"es and "personally"s here.

Again, if you want and wish so badly to personally kill such a guy, 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, and the sick fuck is dead, then I guess we can only hope and pray that you'll get the opportunity soon, no?

Nobody argued that makes you a mass-murderer but it sure sounds plenty sick-minded to me.

Not at all, but we used to have a middle school principal here that wore a gun on his hip, and now that he's retired, they keep a police officer on grounds during the entirety of the day.

They also added an officer to each of the rest of the schools, too.

Right... so how would that improve matters? The police arrived at the scene - what was it? 5 minutes after the call came in.
A principal couldn't have been in the classroom much sooner either.

I would totally go for it.
Well obviously, you suggested it in the first place. It's like Ronald McDonald saying he could go for a burger around now....
It would be a cheap,
No.
one time investment to have a gun safe in the principle's office.
And a never ending cost to keep teachers trained in how to use it. I don't remember the numbers, but someone was making in a point in a news thread about the police shooting someone a few months/years ago. The police don't have the accuracy of private citizens, because police have other things to do other than train constantly. Like patrolling and investigating crimes. Same applies to teachers. They already have full time job, and now you want to add regular firearms training on top of that. And teachers aren't necessarily in the peak of fitness. They'll need hand to hand training too, to keep shooters from just smacking them about and taking their gun.
With bright orange Kevlar jackets for the teachers so everybody knows not to shoot them.
Fair enough.
You could even have the local police department offer free qualifications for teachers who want to be armed.
See, the thing is the police kind of need to be paid. If they're just going to be training in their free time it'll take ages. If they're doing it on the clock, you need more police officers.
Anybody who argues that this would be an overcomplicated expensive mess clearly doesn't understand the simple details of such a plan.
The simple details are simple. Give teachers guns and kevlar vests. Problem with simple plans is that they fail to account for the less than simple nature of the real world.




Maybe the Polizei would shoot me, but the local police in Georgia,
Why on earth would they be responding to a school shooting in Germany? who know that a large number of people here have rifles, probably wouldn't unless I aimed at them. You know, the police response time in some areas here is about 20-30 minutes.

Well, in that case it's a fucking brilliant idea to take police off the streets and put them to work in firing ranges training teachers. :rolleyes:

Well obviously, you suggested it in the first place. It's like Ronald McDonald saying he could go for a burger around now....

No.

And a never ending cost to keep teachers trained in how to use it. I don't remember the numbers, but someone was making in a point in a news thread about the police shooting someone a few months/years ago. The police don't have the accuracy of private citizens, because police have other things to do other than train constantly. Like patrolling and investigating crimes. Same applies to teachers. They already have full time job, and now you want to add regular firearms training on top of that. And teachers aren't necessarily in the peak of fitness. They'll need hand to hand training too, to keep shooters from just smacking them about and taking their gun.


I say we pass a law that teachers get free gun lessons and qualifications from their local police department just like the police do. Cost problem solved.

I don't know if you have ever fired a gun before, but it doesn't take a great deal of training or fitness to be a good shot.


Why on earth would they be responding to a school shooting in Germany?


I didn't mean to suggest that would happen.

You're awfully big on the "want"s and "wish"es and "personally"s here.

Again, if you want and wish so badly to personally kill such a guy, 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, and the sick fuck is dead, then I guess we can only hope and pray that you'll get the opportunity soon, no?

Nobody argued that makes you a mass-murderer but it sure sounds plenty sick-minded to me.

Ok ok, in my fantasy world I like to pretend that I am Chuck Norris. I kill bad guys with karate chops to the groin!

I say we pass a law that teachers get free gun lessons and qualifications from their local police department just like the police do. Cost problem solved.
TANSTAAFL. Training teachers costs, this is unavoidable. You can't just pass a law and make it free.

I don't know if you have ever fired a gun before,
Nope
but it doesn't take a great deal of training or fitness to be a good shot.
The fitness is for keeping the gun, not firing it. And becoming a good shot is one thing. Staying that way is another.

Perhaps, I just wish that I could personally have put an end to that massacre.

Why? Is this a sexual thing?

Why? Is this a sexual thing?

Signs point to yes.

Ok ok, in my fantasy world I like to pretend that I am Chuck Norris. I kill bad guys with karate chops to the groin!

Roundhouse kicks! Roundhouse kicks! Sheesh, sometimes they can't even get an internet meme right...

Right... so how would that improve matters? The police arrived at the scene - what was it? 5 minutes after the call came in.
A principal couldn't have been in the classroom much sooner either.

I re-read the article. I didn't see anything about police response time. If, however, they managed to make it in 5 minutes, which I doubt, I'd like to see a source for that.

In any case, you'd have to give the kid credit for killing fifteen people and escaping the building, causing the police to have to execute a manhunt, in only five minutes.

Also, I don't know how big your campuses are, but I think I could run end-to-end from my high school (longways, was kind of a rectangular building) in less than two minutes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52C33L20090313
(Dutch arrest teenager over school shooting threat)

So, indeed, people get 'inspired' by other school shootings :( And this one even in my place of birth :(

I re-read the article. I didn't see anything about police response time. If, however, they managed to make it in 5 minutes, which I doubt, I'd like to see a source for that.

In any case, you'd have to give the kid credit for killing fifteen people and escaping the building, causing the police to have to execute a manhunt, in only five minutes.

Also, I don't know how big your campuses are, but I think I could run end-to-end from my high school (longways, was kind of a rectangular building) in less than two minutes.
They actually arrived at the school 2-3 minutes after they received the first call. It's a small town. Some sources, since you insist (in German, so you might have to just believe me):

http://www.polizei-waiblingen.de/servlet/PB/menu/1284644/index.html?ROOT=1122864
http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/winnenden/winnenden-codewort-fuer-das-unvorstellbare_aid_379685.html
http://de.news.yahoo.com/2/20090311/tts-zeitlicher-ablauf-des-amoklaufs-von-c1b2fc3.html

It's just sad when Europeans try to rip off American culture.
And are more "successful" at it too.

Unfortunately, thats what I was thinking...

I don't know if you have ever fired a gun before, but it doesn't take a great deal of training or fitness to be a good shot.
.

Combat shooting with a pistol?

I re-read the article. I didn't see anything about police response time. If, however, they managed to make it in 5 minutes, which I doubt, I'd like to see a source for that.

In any case, you'd have to give the kid credit for killing fifteen people and escaping the building, causing the police to have to execute a manhunt, in only five minutes.

To re-post what I've posted before:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,612780,00.html

And "give him credit" for killing 11 people in the school during five minutes of shooting? No, not at all, really.

To re-post what I've posted before:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,612780,00.html

And "give him credit" for killing 11 people in the school during five minutes of shooting? No, not at all, really.

My apologies, the original article said 15. Kudos for arriving in two minutes according to that timeline. They must have been close, or driving like a bat out of hell.

The simple fact, however, is that they didn't arrive until 5 minutes after the shooting began, and then would have to penetrate the school and find the person. This is opposed to having an armed person on campus who is already on campus. Time - 5 minutes.

My apologies, the original article said 15. Kudos for arriving in two minutes according to that timeline. They must have been close, or driving like a bat out of hell.

It's a small town(I believe) so probably both.

I don't know if you have ever fired a gun before, but it doesn't take a great deal of training or fitness to be a good shot.
Sounds like someone hasn't been to the range in a while. Getting the gun to shoot in the general direction of your target isn't a problem. Hitting it dead center and nothing else in half the time it takes your target to draw takes a bit of practice.

My apologies, the original article said 15. Kudos for arriving in two minutes according to that timeline. They must have been close, or driving like a bat out of hell.

The simple fact, however, is that they didn't arrive until 5 minutes after the shooting began, and then would have to penetrate the school and find the person. This is opposed to having an armed person on campus who is already on campus. Time - 5 minutes.

if someone is shooting up a school i am going to drive like a bat out of hell too.

TANSTAAFL. Training teachers costs, this is unavoidable. You can't just pass a law and make it free.


Nope

The fitness is for keeping the gun, not firing it. And becoming a good shot is one thing. Staying that way is another.

Don't you tanstaafl me! ooooo... I just want to point out that we already have in place excellent facilities and resources at our local police departments to train and qualify a handful of volunteer teachers at every school in our nation. Of course, its not free. But I bet you it would be cheap, perhaps cheaper than having full time armed security guards at schools like they do in some places.

Why? Is this a sexual thing?

Alright Dr. Freud, I admit, I want to have sex with that school shooter.

My apologies, the original article said 15. Kudos for arriving in two minutes according to that timeline. They must have been close, or driving like a bat out of hell.

The simple fact, however, is that they didn't arrive until 5 minutes after the shooting began, and then would have to penetrate the school and find the person. This is opposed to having an armed person on campus who is already on campus. Time - 5 minutes.
Not really. Even the person on campus would have to be notified somehow, and find where the shooter is.

And having just one armed person on campus, would that be enough here? He shot several police officers, did he not?

Alright Dr. Freud, I admit, I want to have sex with that school shooter.

Hm. I would have thought you either were making the fantasy for purely masturbational purposes, getting off on the idea of killing a person without fear of retribution, or that the fantasy entailed getting sexual favours from grateful survivors. But I was sure that the latter also contained some elements of enjoyment stemming from the fact that you'd taken a life too.

Seems like I was wrong and it was just some homosexual attraction that you wanted to put down in a violent way.

Not really. Even the person on campus would have to be notified somehow, and find where the shooter is.



.

for a high school everything is normally one building.
so i imgine the gun shots would be the signal for the officer on campus to react.

for a high school everything is normally one building.
so i imgine the gun shots would be the signal for the officer on campus to react.

First he has to hear them, then understand them, and then this one person is up against an armed person in a bulletproof vest.

The best thing he could do in such a situation is call the police.

First he has to hear them, then understand them, and then this one person is up against an armed person in a bulletproof vest.

The best thing he could do in such a situation is call the police.

my on campus cops were in bullet proof vest, normal part of the police uniform.

indoors there is no mistaking a firearm being discharged. He would likely have a radio request in while responding.

As i read the article he exchanged fire with the police but withdrew, seems an armed police officer on campus could have reduced causalities by a lot by forcing him to withdraw.

First he has to hear them, then understand them, and then this one person is up against an armed person in a bulletproof vest.

The best thing he could do in such a situation is call the police.

I would agree that the best thing he could do is call the police but having the odds slightly against him in a firefight doesn't mean that he couldn't prevent the deaths of others by tackling a gunman himself. He still has a chance

I would agree that the best thing he could do is call the police but having the odds slightly against him in a firefight doesn't mean that he couldn't prevent the deaths of others by tackling a gunman himself. He still has a chance

he is a police officer he will have a vest on him, and years of training and experience. He is not so helpless. not to mention you get shot while wearing a bullet vest you likely get knocked down and have a few broken or bruised ribs, unless you want to arm the school cop with a 22 caliber.

my on campus cops were in bullet proof vest, normal part of the police uniform.
Not something you'd see in most of Europe.

And it would be costly to station a police officer at every single school. Rather pointless too.
indoors there is no mistaking a firearm being discharged. He would likely have a radio request in while responding.
So you would have several officers at every school?

As i read the article he exchanged fire with the police but withdrew, seems an armed police officer on campus could have reduced causalities by a lot by forcing him to withdraw.
Which is, of course, pure speculation on your part.

I would agree that the best thing he could do is call the police but having the odds slightly against him in a firefight doesn't mean that he couldn't prevent the deaths of others by tackling a gunman himself. He still has a chance
So does all of the unarmed students. They could have overpowered him if they all charged him.

Of course, such a thing would never happen, because of the surprise and terror and whatnot, but they would all have a chance. In theory.

Not something you'd see in most of Europe.

seems Europe needs to catch up with the times

And it would be costly to station a police officer at every single school. Rather pointless too.

So you would have several officers at every school?

My middle school had 1 officer. My high school had 5. The school was rigged so their hand radios can go straight to the police dispatcher.

Cost about the same as putting the police anywhere else you have a group of people who need to be protected. Actually cheaper then having them on patrol because they are not driving around using up gas.

saving teenage lives is so pointless???

Which is, of course, pure speculation on your part.

about the same as your view that an officer would be useless against an assailant.

Alright Dr. Freud, I admit, I want to have sex with that school shooter.

Hate to break to you this way, but he's dead. Though I suppose technically thats not a complete barrier....