German teenager kills sixteen

[akuchi]

Antidepressants? Oh god. I had fantasies about a massacre at my college when I was on citalopram - because gun control is so stringent here I couldn't get one (nor did I make an effort to), but I can definitely see how that happened. In my case I was suffering from PTSD as a result of rape and some rather charming gentlemen behind me in several of my classes made continual rape jokes, one of whom progressed to boasting he'd fucked (i.e. raped) an unconcious girl at a party, had filmed it, and would show his friends in some of the classes. I genuinely thought the world would be much better off without these people - and our legal system is so terrible in matters of sexual violence I know there was no legal recourse these people could be punished with. I thought a lot about how I'd do it - but decided not to on the grounds I wasn't sure I could have killed myself before the police arrived, I'd have to have used a knife. Would I ever have actually done it or was it just some dark messed up fantasy I dwelt on too much? Dunno. Very, very likely the latter - I've never reached the stage of nihilism required to perform such an act.
Whilst I cannot bring myself to sympathise with this guy's mental state and actions at all - I cannot personally understand how not having a girlfriend gave him the wish to kill women (though from a feminist perspective I can certainly understand the sense of entitlement and subsequent frustration at being rejected, but I shan't go off into a feminist polemic about this one). What I do get is (even if I can't accept or work through the reasoning) the terrible sense of frustration, hatred, nihilism and sadistic despair that he was feeling.

Oh, and by the way, after I'd come off the citalopram, these thoughts stopped, though the behaviour of the men in question only escalated. I can't be bothered to dig up links - have just woken up - but I believe a lot of the school shooters have been on SSRI medication.
Do I blame this medication? No, of course not. But you give a disaffected teenager with access to a gun and a history of mental health problems a substance that makes them feel completely disassociated from the world, and that is not a Good Thing.

 

[Anti]

Times like these where I wish they caught the shooter alive and torture him slowly painfully for all the harm he's done.

two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Lexite]

If gun control laws were enforced obtaining guns would be a lot harder. There are a lot of shootings that are done on accident and by those who aren't actually criminals (Not trying to rob etc.)

Wrong. It was proven in Washington DC that that is false. Guns were banned for a period of time in DC and the crime rate increased to 4 times the national average over the same period of time. Murders also increased to 8 times the national average. Needless to say the gun ban was removed and deemed unconstitutional. Weed is illegal, its still very easy to get that still. Gun laws do not prevent people from getting illegal guns, they only prevent people who aren't criminals from using them to defend themselves.

Laws only keep honest people honest.

There was a study done during the 1990s in which 80% of convicted felons felt that they could obtain a gun with little or no difficulty even if they were made illegal, because they did not use legally purchased weapons to begin with.

If you're going to go off on the whole "guns cause accidents" argument, I'll have you know that cars cause 40 times as many deaths per year (national safety council statistics, 2008). Maybe you should try banning those first.

 

[akuchi]

How many school shootings has Britain had lately?

 

[Syberia]

How many school shootings has Switzerland had lately? Because I seem to recall that

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.

 

[Lexite]

How many school shootings has Britain had lately?

How big is Britain and how big is the US? How many people live in Britain and how many people live in the US? Random chance says we are going to have more. Think about it. Mind you, this is not a crime that any laws could have prevented. And also guns are illegal in Mexico and the US still gets a shit load of guns from Mexico, lot of help the gun law does over there, not to mention the number of people that get shot and killed over there.

 

[diinbong]

Here goes. I have to say I'm pretty disgusted by the "shocked good guy" circle jerks school shootings rake in, especially because were dealing with teenagers who generally can't see past the farm party on Friday night and are just as impressionable as toddlers. Okay. People died. We feel bad. I get it.

I just want you guys to understand that one bad influence doesn't make somebody a murderer to the point that they don't even care who they kill. may do. Many feelings, many conflictions...

Many people.

I'd like to know if any other kids bullied this kid. Belligerents. I'd like to know how many onlookers didn't do shit because they wern't the ones being bullied. Cowards. I'd like to know how many others noticed this kid being victimized first and thought "Well I feel sorry for him but theres no way I'm being friends with that weirdo". Idiots.

and how is it still a shock that kids do this shit when it's become a sterotype?

Also know that I'm not saying that he's a hero or that being bullied is justification for homicide.

you took the words right out of my mouth

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

the population argument doesn't hold. when you measure gun murders per 100 000 head of population, the U.S. rate is about 40 times higher than the rate for England and Wales

40 times

 

[Son of Disaster]

good joke.

If gun control laws were enforced obtaining guns would be a lot harder. There are a lot of shootings that are done on accident and by those who aren't actually criminals (Not trying to rob etc.)

In that article i gave you it said 80% of guns in australia used for crime were obtained illegally. Same with here in the states. You really think that gun control stops the black market trade? Especially with such terrible border control as the us has. Crime went up exponetially in D.C. when they had a gun ban. It was finally taken away because the constitution guarantees the right to own firearms. Come on...

just barely saw the rest of the post. Lexite said everything i need to say.

here's a uk article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html

 

[akuchi]

That's from the fucking Telegraph. Please, please don't quote that - it's almost as right-wing as they come in Britain, with the possible exception of the Mail. Whatever Labour (or as they sometimes so wittily call them, LIARBOUR ahaha) do is bad and wrong and let's use everything as an excuse to vote the Tories into power.

 

[Lexite]

the population argument doesn't hold. when you measure gun murders per 100 000 head of population, the U.S. rate is about 40 times higher than the rate for England and Wales

40 times

I was directly responding to akuchi's comment about the number of school shootings. If you want to discuss murder rates as a whole, I suggest you take a look at Switzerland. Similar or lower rate than that of the UK adjusted for population, but a hell of a lot more guns.

You might also want to consider the fact that European countries as a whole solve a lot more of their crimes than in the US, meaning people won't commit crimes because "they think they can get away with it." We certainly have a lot of that in the US

If you really want to see just how "effective" anti-gun legislation can be, take a look at Mexico. It's such a great place, the State Department is telling us not to go there for our own safety. Guns are banned, drugs are banned, people fight with guns over drugs!

On a side note, you don't need guns to kill people. But they do have legitimate defensive uses. Not to mention all the guns that are owned and shot purely for sport, and never aimed at anything besides a target/animal.

Akuchi, you can reference all the leftist sites you want and claim they're the fucking bible, but the moment someone posts something that disagrees with you, you're all OMG YOU CANT DO THAT!!!!!




Just another sad story showing how you dont need a gun to kill someone, a butter knife works too. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/16/local/me-mother16 http://www.orangecountyda.com/home/index.asp?page=8&recordid=1079

 

[klarth]

Wrong. It was proven in Washington DC that that is false. Guns were banned for a period of time in DC and the crime rate increased to 4 times the national average over the same period of time. Murders also increased to 8 times the national average. Needless to say the gun ban was removed and deemed unconstitutional. Weed is illegal, its still very easy to get that still. Gun laws do not prevent people from getting illegal guns, they only prevent people who aren't criminals from using them to defend themselves.

First of all, that was one trial and banning the sales and ownership of guns must be policed or as you said: It only keeps honest people honest.

Banning guns would be followed by a sharp increase in gun-related crimes followed by a gradual decrease. Of course illegal firearms wouldn't disappear overnight, not after so many years of basically non-existent gun control laws.

Also comparing guns to marijuana? What are you stupid? I refuse to believe that is anything but an intentional logical fallacy. Guns must be manufactured which means that if they're not coming from an licensed gun retailer they're coming from illegal sources which can be tracked down and stopped. Marijuana can be grown from the comfort of ones home and is safe to use.

Ever think that the reason Marijuana is so easy to obtain is because it doesn't pose a threat to society or peoples lives?

You also start blathering on about "self defense". Did you know that you're more likely to kill a loved one or a friend than you are to prevent a robbery/rape/murder/arson/digimon attempt?

Put simply: There is no reason for anyone who lives in suburban, urban or metropolitan areas to own a handgun. It's stupid. If you're not planning on shooting anything then why the hell do you own a gun?

For those who actually commit crimes with guns 52%* obtain their guns in legitimate ways. This means that gun control laws would definitely put a dent in those who would like to purchase a gun to use illegally.


The trend with school shooters is that most if not all have obtained their guns legally and have had little or no legal altercations previously. The solution isn't more guns, it's less.

If you're going to go off on the whole "guns cause accidents" argument, I'll have you know that cars cause 40 times as many deaths per year (national safety council statistics, 2008). Maybe you should try banning those first.

Okay. This just made me angry. This makes me want to punch a whole in my computer monitor. In cities and towns CARS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVE A PURPOSE, WITHOUT THEM MANY ESSENTIAL THINGS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE COMPARING THEM TO GUNS IS STUPID AND YOU KNOW THAT IT'S STUPID WHY ARE YOU SAYING STUPID THINGS AND THEN CLAIMING NOT TO BE STUPID?! I KNOW YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE BEING WITTY BUT YOU WERE NOT THINK TWICE BEFORE TRYING TO ACT SMART.

Edit: What the hell? HARRY POTTER ACTOR STABBED DEFENDING YOUNG BROTHER. Lexite why the hell would you even post this? It's completely irrelevant.

2nd edit: Lexite, just because something might be hard to police does NOT mean that it's not worth policing. Mexico is a third world country where corruption is very common. It's not exactly the best case study to be using. It adds no credibility to your argument.

@Son Of Disaster
You showed me statistics from one city in Australia having an increase in Guns in the year 2000. You can sway the statistics however you want but you can't change them and the US has a much higher rate of gun violence per capita and much less guns and tougher gun laws. Seems pretty straightforward.

* In the united states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
​

 

[CaptKirby]

Lexite, do you even fucking know what elevated crime so much in the mid 1900s in the United States? Easy access to semi-automatic weapons for the first time. Weapons aid crime at a level nothing else does. Of course it will be problematic for only police force/government to have the guns...but it is better than this.

 

[NESgamer]

If you really want to see just how "effective" anti-gun legislation can be, take a look at Mexico. It's such a great place, the State Department is telling us not to go there for our own safety. Guns are banned, drugs are banned, people fight with guns over drugs!

I live a quiet good life in here, that is just over the top and it's been exaggerated.

Really, if you wanted to use this as an example you failed, because you don't know anything at all of this place, true, crime is a problem but allowing people to get guns would only make it worse. It's stupid to point the finger and use something not related at all (drug traffic is something very complex for you) as a justification to why banning guns doesn't work.

 

[Lexite]

Also comparing guns to marijuana? What are you stupid? I refuse to believe that is anything but an intentional logical fallacy. Guns must be manufactured which means that if they're not coming from an licensed gun retailer they're coming from illegal sources which can be tracked down and stopped. Marijuana can be grown from the comfort of ones home and is safe to use.​

No I am pointing out the fact that just because somehting is banned doesnt mean a person cant still obtain it with ease. You failed to make the connection.

Ever think that the reason Marijuana is so easy to obtain is because it doesn't pose a threat to society or peoples lives?

ever think that guns are easy to obtain too, and I am refering to illegal gun sales, not legal ones.

Put simply: There is no reason for anyone who lives in suburban, urban or metropolitan areas to own a handgun. It's stupid. If you're not planning on shooting anything then why the hell do you own a gun?

Criminals are deterred from robbing a house if the owner has a gun. Yes there is a use for having a hand gun for your protection.


​

 

[tape]

And now that everyone went from the ":( people die and this is so sad", it's time to move to the heated arguments which ends (hopefully soon) in massive flames, some infractions, and a topic lockage.

 

[Syberia]

First of all, that was one trial and banning the sales and ownership of guns must be policed or as you said: It only keeps honest people honest.

So then you agree. And here's a novel idea - instead of wasting the resources of the state playing nanny and making sure guns don't get into the hands of people who aren't a threat, how about you use them to actually deal with the people who actually present a threat. Maybe if our police departments weren't caught up in so many petty affairs, they wouldn't solve a dismally low percentage of crimes.

More about the police later.

Banning guns would be followed by a sharp increase in gun-related crimes followed by a gradual decrease. Of course illegal firearms wouldn't disappear overnight, not after so many years of basically non-existent gun control laws.

Or rather, it would go up and up with no end in sight. Seems to be what happened in D.C. anyways. You're saying you'd be willing to sacrifice all the people that would be sacrificed in the period of "sharp increase" until it goes down, if it ever does? You are a terrible excuse for a human being.

Also comparing guns to marijuana? What are you stupid? I refuse to believe that is anything but an intentional logical fallacy. Guns must be manufactured which means that if they're not coming from an licensed gun retailer they're coming from illegal sources which can be tracked down and stopped. Marijuana can be grown from the comfort of ones home and is safe to use.

You're the one whose logic makes no sense. Even if no more guns were ever produced (more on this later), what about all those that are in circulation right now? Unless the police went around searching everyone's homes and confiscating their guns (4th amendment, anyone?) they'd still be in circulation. Able to be stolen/sold/used by anyone who wants them.

Ever wonder why there's so much violence surrounding drugs? It's because there's a lot of money in them. Because they're illegal, and thus rare. Illegal guns would be the same way. Worth a lot of money, so there would still be illegal sources of them.

Ever think that the reason Marijuana is so easy to obtain is because it doesn't pose a threat to society or peoples lives?

It's easy to obtain because enforcement is impossible. The fact that "it doesn't pose a threat" hasn't stopped the DEA from enforcing it, the simple fact is they cannot enforce it in an effective manner.

Remember prohibition? It gave us the mafia.
The war on drugs? We got drug lords that resemble the mafia.
I wonder what another ban on something people want will get us?

You also start blathering on about "self defense". Did you know that you're more likely to kill a loved one or a friend than you are to prevent a robbery/rape/murder/arson/digimon attempt?

Did you read the link Lexite posted?

Put simply: There is no reason for anyone who lives in suburban, urban or metropolitan areas to own a handgun. It's stupid. If you're not planning on shooting anything then why the hell do you own a gun?

Put simply, a gun is an insurance policy. I should cancel my health insurance, because I sure as hell don't plan to get sick.

The simple fact of the matter is, you cannot rely on the police to protect you from a crime in progress. They don't respond until after something has happened, and I really don't see how having the bad guy in jail after the fact helps you if you're hurt, robbed, raped, or killed.

For those who actually commit crimes with guns 52%* obtain their guns in legitimate ways. This means that gun control laws would definitely put a dent in those who would like to purchase a gun to use illegally.

Regardless of how they obtain their guns under current laws (where they can buy them legally), the convenient thing about criminals is they don't care about the laws. As long as they can get guns (they will be able to), they will get them.

The trend with school shooters is that most if not all have obtained their guns legally and have had little or no legal altercations previously. The solution isn't more guns, it's less.

At least the Va. Tech and Columbine shooters were mentally disturbed well before the fact. If they had been given the proper treatment and attention, maybe they wouldn't be a problem.

Okay. This just made me angry. This makes me want to punch a whole in my computer monitor. In cities and towns CARS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVE A PURPOSE, WITHOUT THEM MANY ESSENTIAL THINGS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE COMPARING THEM TO GUNS IS STUPID AND YOU KNOW THAT IT'S STUPID WHY ARE YOU SAYING STUPID THINGS AND THEN CLAIMING NOT TO BE STUPID?! I KNOW YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE BEING WITTY BUT YOU WERE NOT THINK TWICE BEFORE TRYING TO ACT SMART.

Yet cars aren't a constitutionally protected right, but guns are.

 

[Garchomp of the Funk]

Originally Posted by the Founding Fathers
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is connected to the necessity of a well-regulated militia. As the United States now has an army, which supplies its soldiers with weapons (as does the National Guard for its soldiers), the Second Amendment is now completely defunct as its raison d'être has disappeared.

However, if you want to legalize weapons that would have been used in a "well regulated [18th century] militia," I'm sure very few gun control advocates would object, as these weapons are borderline useless for criminals, who need to be able to conceal their weapons, but still retain their hunting and self-defense value (as the point of a self-defense firearm is to be seen, since it is illegal to use deadly force unless lives are at stake.)

 

[Lexite]

I live a quiet good life in here, that is just over the top and it's been exaggerated.

Really, if you wanted to use this as an example you failed, because you don't know anything at all of this place, true, crime is a problem but allowing people to get guns would only make it worse. It's stupid to point the finger and use something not related at all (drug traffic is something very complex for you) as a justification to why banning guns doesn't work.

Actually, drug trafficing is very easy for me to understand. And if it is so great over there, why are the colleges and the government warning people to not go there and to be careful. Failed example my butt.


And do you all just fail to understand the point that if guns were banned and some how there was a way to remove all guns from the world and erase everyone's memories of guns (since a skilled person can make a gun at home) that we would just revert to using other weapons. Guns are completely banned and not accessable in prisons, but inmates still kill each other all the time.

 

[Syberia]

The constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is connected to the necessity of a well-regulated militia. As the United States now has an army, which supplies its soldiers with weapons (as does the National Guard for its soldiers), the Second Amendment is now completely defunct as its raison d'être has disappeared.

However, if you want to legalize weapons that would have been used in a "well regulated [18th century] militia," I'm sure very few gun control advocates would object, as these weapons are borderline useless for criminals, who need to be able to conceal their weapons, but still retain their hunting and self-defense value (as the point of a self-defense firearm is to be seen, since it is illegal to use deadly force unless lives are at stake.)

The militia has been time and time again interpreted to refer to all citizens of the United States.

According to the United States Code, it is "all able-bodied males who are, or have made a declaration to become, citizens of the United States." While it only mentions males, this piece of 19th-century legislation can clearly be expanded to include women in the present day.

In the Supreme Court case United States v. Miller, the militia was ruled to be "comprised of all men physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

In a more recent case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, "'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

Finally, in Heller v. District of Columbia, "the second amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia."

So the judges whose job it is to actually interpret the second amendment would seem to disagree with you on that one.

 

[maddog]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

However you forgot this part of the second admendment. And besides a militla is a citizen army, not a professional one.

since it is illegal to use deadly force unless lives are at stake

Where I live this is (kind of) true and where you may live it might be true, but its not the same everywhere. In Texas for example, you can use lethal force to get somebody off your property. Or you could use a gun to help protect yourself from other dangers. Don't even talk to me about the bs California laws that say you can only repel somebody with equal force (which means if I shoot someone that is holding a knife to me, I would be in trouble!). I pretty much agree with Lexite and Syberia on this one.

 

[Iamslow]

two wrongs don't make a right.

Sometimes two rights make a wrong.

And now that everyone went from the ":( people die and this is so sad", it's time to move to the heated arguments which ends (hopefully soon) in massive flames, some infractions, and a topic lockage.

Everything has it's place.

That's from the fucking Telegraph. Please, please don't quote that - it's almost as right-wing as they come in Britain, with the possible exception of the Mail. Whatever Labour (or as they sometimes so wittily call them, LIARBOUR ahaha) do is bad and wrong and let's use everything as an excuse to vote the Tories into power.

That's pretty weak, which I find ironic because liberals are supposed to be "open minded". Theres no chance at all that link could have made a good point, right? I mean you come from a very extreme angle all the time too and I find myself agreeing with you here and there.

 

[Morm]

Lexite, do you even fucking know what elevated crime so much in the mid 1900s in the United States? Easy access to semi-automatic weapons for the first time. Weapons aid crime at a level nothing else does. Of course it will be problematic for only police force/government to have the guns...but it is better than this.

Lexite I'm just going to point out that you either missed this fantastic point or you ignored it flat out and I am curious to see how you will twist things in favor of your arguement having this observation by CK out in the open.

 

[NESgamer]

Actually, drug trafficing is very easy for me to understand. And if it is so great over there, why are the colleges and the government warning people to not go there and to be careful. Failed example my butt.

Yeah your example is invalid, and if you are warned to don't come, well that's another thing (exaggerated), but it's not in any way a reason to prove your point. It seems that now you will teach me about where i live?

If it is easy for you, then you could at least elaborate on it, but the truth is you have no idea of the subject, and you shouldn't probably bring it on this thread.

 

[Syberia]

Lexite I'm just going to point out that you either missed this fantastic point or you ignored it flat out and I am curious to see how you will twist things in favor of your arguement having this observation by CK out in the open.

The fact remains, guns are out there and they're not going away. There may have been less crime before they were invented, but that's largely irrelevant now that people have them. Now that the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, the only way to combat an armed criminal is with an armed citizen. Otherwise the former is free to walk all over the latter with no recourse.