http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...ing/index.html
:(
Printable View
Very sad! The families and students must be devestated. :mad:
Sad indeed.
That's why you need gun control laws (which they were going to tighten)
Guns should be in the hands of trained and licensed people. The rest should keep their hands off it period.
I thought we Americans had a monopoly on this sort of craziness.
BTW: Gun control does not stop this sort of nut. It might stop other types of tragedies, but not criminals or crazies.
I thought Germany had strict gun control laws, and not many guns in the hands of private citizens.
damn, and i thought only we had people dumb enuff to go in a school and kill a bunch of teenagers....
I'm from Brunswick, it's in northern Germany and I was right in school while it happens. We're all scared.
I never thought that this may happen. :mad:
I'm very sorry for all relatives of the killed pupils, teachers and the police officer.
This sucks :(
Noone should be allowed guns.
But it does reduce access to it. The US has more gun murders than every other country in the world (and probably a few other worlds) put together and yet still they argue a lack of causality.Quote:
Originally posted by Guv
BTW: Gun control does not stop this sort of nut. It might stop other types of tragedies, but not criminals or crazies.
Guns dont kill people. Losers and cowards with guns kill people.
There's always a way, but imagine if he'd needed another couple of days to find a gun - he may well have calmed down, who knows?Quote:
Originally posted by Guv
BTW: Gun control does not stop this sort of nut. It might stop other types of tragedies, but not criminals or crazies.
I concur with BB. Cowards do it - cowards often don't spent the effort to put a revenge plan in place. They lash out with the first, most devastating thing they can find.
Australia dwalt with this problem a few years back -why is it so hard for evry1 else to do the same?
Guns don't kill people, bullets do. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by beachbum
Guns dont kill people. Losers and cowards with guns kill people.
How did Australia deal with it, rj?
Guns and knifes aren't the worst type of weapons, people are.Quote:
Guns dont kill people. Losers and cowards with guns kill people.
I mean we have only got ourselves to blame for bad things that happen in society.
which is why people shouldn't have access to things like guns that can kill a lot of other people easily and quickly. I'm sorry, but the morons in the states who hide behind their constitutional right to bear arms are usually the same people who get killed with their own guns. There are a lot of responsible gun owners. But no matter how you look at it, there is no reason for anyone to own a gun. No one in the US has to hunt their own food, so they kill for pleasure, not for necessity.
Sick. :mad:
What's that saying...When owning a gun is a crime, only criminals will own guns.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
which is why people shouldn't have access to things like guns that can kill a lot of other people easily and quickly. I'm sorry, but the morons in the states who hide behind their constitutional right to bear arms are usually the same people who get killed with their own guns. There are a lot of responsible gun owners. But no matter how you look at it, there is no reason for anyone to own a gun. No one in the US has to hunt their own food, so they kill for pleasure, not for necessity.
Imagine if regular people couldn't own guns. How would they protect themselves from criminals who easily get them from the black market.
I'm not a big gun fan, but I see no reason for responsible people to own them.
Why doesn't the government in te US change the gun laws over there. In Australia, we have a no guns law for a number of years.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
which is why people shouldn't have access to things like guns that can kill a lot of other people easily and quickly. I'm sorry, but the morons in the states who hide behind their constitutional right to bear arms are usually the same people who get killed with their own guns. There are a lot of responsible gun owners. But no matter how you look at it, there is no reason for anyone to own a gun. No one in the US has to hunt their own food, so they kill for pleasure, not for necessity.
I never hear about "responsible people" fending off criminals with guns. It never happens. Responsible people have their guns locked up and can't get to them in the course of the crime. Again... there is no reason for ANYONE to have a gun.
I've never owned a gun and never needed one. I don't expect I ever will. In fact, no one in my family has a gun. Common sense will keep you out of a lot of trouble.
They don't because the US is huge and there are a lot of people who like owning guns. It's the same reason alcohol is legal and pot isn't.Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
Why doesn't the government in te US change the gun laws over there. In Australia, we have a no guns law for a number of years.
Politicians aren't going to take on the gun laws. I mean look at what's happened over here in the past couple years. We have presidents getting shot at, which is ok, but there are also school children getting killed in droves. There are also people with jobs like you've got getting killed at work by someone who has no self-control and no healthy ways of dealing with his problems which is why he probably got fired in the first place.
The laws need to be changed, but apparently having a few hundred kids killed in schools isn't important enough to worry about.
How about a convience store clerk as an example. A criminal comes in with a gun that he got from the black market. The clerk may have been able to scare the criminal away with the shotgun he has under the counter, but, WHOOPS, he's not allowed to have a gun becuase its illegal. And the poor bastard loses his life because he lost his right to defend himself.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
I never hear about "responsible people" fending off criminals with guns. It never happens. Responsible people have their guns locked up and can't get to them in the course of the crime. Again... there is no reason for ANYONE to have a gun.
You're watching too many movies. Look at the statistics and I think you'll see it doesn't happen very often. Like never. I've never heard a single story outside of the movies of someone fending off someone else because he had a gun. I've heard a lot of stories about a criminal getting access to a person's gun before the person could and then killing him.
It's a messed up situation because we didn't handle it when it would have been simple. now if the laws change, there are millions of guns floating around and it will take a very, very long time to get rid of them all.
And, there's another point. Some jobs are inherently dangerous. Like in the priest's thread where it was said it was their choice to become a priest. I would never choose to work in a convenience store. It's not like a convenience store is a necessity.
And, I'm not sure about this, but I think in reality convenience stores can't keep shotguns under their counters. Maybe certain states, but I think it's generally illegal.
So you are saying that anything and everything that is beyond necessity should be done away with? :confused:
And your arguments may be somewhat valid and justified, but it still doesn't change the fact that people need to have the right to defend themselves.
I'm not sure either, but it was just an example ;)Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
And, I'm not sure about this, but I think in reality convenience stores can't keep shotguns under their counters. Maybe certain states, but I think it's generally illegal.
What about the ppl was a medical background (like crazy ppl)?Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
So you are saying that anything and everything that is beyond necessity should be done away with? :confused:
And your arguments may be somewhat valid and justified, but it still doesn't change the fact that people need to have the right to defend themselves.
You can't just let them gain access to guns.
Notice that I did mention responsible people in a previous post ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
What about the ppl was a medical background (like crazy ppl)?
You can't just let them gain access to guns.
Well, responsible people are responsible people and aren't the ones you hear about.
The problem with mental disorders is that you may not know someone has one until it's too late.
If it were up to me, you'd have to qualify to own a gun through a series of very demanding and stressful tests to see how you hold up under pressure and your general mentality. They would also be indepth enough to bring your true value of life to the surface.
This is off the subject, but I think there should be basically the same types of tests to be a parent. I mean what could be more dangerous to someone than bad parenting? Too many people want babies, but a lot of them don't want kids.
Yeah but they could still get their hands on a gun on the black market.Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
Notice that I did mention responsible people in a previous post ;)
cafeeman - you're treading on dangerous territory when you start talking about controlling who's allowed to have children and who is not.
NW - That's kind of the whole basis of my argument. Criminals/The irresponsible will still find a way to get guns legal or not.
:)
They still won't be able to stop these ppl because they could just import guns from over seas.Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
cafeeman - you're treading on dangerous territory when you start talking about controlling who's allowed to have children and who is not.
NW - That's kind of the whole basis of my argument. Criminals/The irresponsible will still find a way to get guns legal or not.
:)
Yes they will. But I think that's a really lame argument. Essentially you're saying that they're going to do it anyway, so let's not do anything about it. We need to make it as difficult as possible for a criminal to own a gun. And our legal system, which is a joke, needs to be revised so that the penalties for violent crimes are actually a deterent. Three strikes is two strikes too many if you ask me.
I only have a couple points. After that we're just stating the same things back and forth.
1) Responsible people who own guns, ultimately aren't protected by them because the guns aren't available quickly enough.
2) There is no reason to own a gun. Not one. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
3) If a gun were a necessity to protect one's self, as you make it seem, then everyone should have one like any other utility.
For the rest of us, a little common sense goes a long way. Don't aggravate dangerous people.
The point about the convenience store WAS NOT that they shouldn't exist because they aren't necessary. The point was that the people who choose to work in them have chosen a risky occupation.
These stores are not necessary. The people who work in convenience stores are not engaged in professions that we really need someone doing (medical, for example). If there were no convenience stores then our society would not be affected much. And yes, I understand it was just an example.
OkQuote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Yes they will. But I think that's a really lame argument. Essentially you're saying that they're going to do it anyway, so let's not do anything about it. We need to make it as difficult as possible for a criminal to own a gun. And our legal system, which is a joke, needs to be revised so that the penalties for violent crimes are actually a deterent. Three strikes is two strikes too many if you ask me.
I only have a couple points. After that we're just stating the same things back and forth.
1) Responsible people who own guns, ultimately aren't protected by them because the guns aren't available quickly enough.
2) There is no reason to own a gun. Not one. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
3) If a gun were a necessity to protect one's self, as you make it seem, then everyone should have one like any other utility.
For the rest of us, a little common sense goes a long way. Don't aggravate dangerous people.
The point about the convenience store WAS NOT that they shouldn't exist because they aren't necessary. The point was that the people who choose to work in them have chosen a risky occupation.
These stores are not necessary. The people who work in convenience stores are not engaged in professions that we really need someone doing (medical, for example). If there were no convenience stores then our society would not be affected much. And yes, I understand it was just an example.
Actually, I was responding to cryptblade. :) But your point is well taken too. I agree that criminals will be able to get guns. I have no doubt in my mind that is true.Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
Ok
Oh okQuote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Actually, I was responding to cryptblade. :) But your point is well taken too. I agree that criminals will be able to get guns. I have no doubt in my mind that is true.
You seem very stuck on the idea that only things that are necessary should exist. There's no need for us to have computers, and yet no one is gonna take them away.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Yes they will. But I think that's a really lame argument. Essentially you're saying that they're going to do it anyway, so let's not do anything about it. We need to make it as difficult as possible for a criminal to own a gun. And our legal system, which is a joke, needs to be revised so that the penalties for violent crimes are actually a deterent. Three strikes is two strikes too many if you ask me.
I only have a couple points. After that we're just stating the same things back and forth.
1) Responsible people who own guns, ultimately aren't protected by them because the guns aren't available quickly enough.
2) There is no reason to own a gun. Not one. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
3) If a gun were a necessity to protect one's self, as you make it seem, then everyone should have one like any other utility.
The fact of the matter is, these things do exist, and just because someone chooses a "risky" profession, it doesn't mean that they have less of a right to protect themselves.
Anyway, I'm not used to all this serious discussion :rolleyes:
I'm going to bed.
A few years back, some nutjob did a number in Tasmania, and killed a stack of people, for absolutely no reason that I ever heard about. It was a tourist spot, and he just went crazy. He's locked up now - they got him before he could do himself in.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
How did Australia deal with it, rj?
Anyway, not long afterwards, a massive amnesty came into place. Automatic weapons are completely illegal. No one is allowed to own one for any reason. This even goes for paintball-guns. Noone is allowed to bear arms in public. There are very strict licensing laws, where only farmers and the like are allowed to own a gun, and then, only 1, I believe. I'm not sure about semiautomatics, I think they are legal to the farmers and what not. Also, carrying any sort of weapon in public is illegal, of course the police have very little power in regard to searching someone for an illegal weapon. Shops are not allowed to sell knives, of any kind - that includes box-cutters, and pen-knives, to anyone under 16 years of age.
When the gun amnesty came into place, heaps of people had the ****s, but the government bought their guns off them, and destroyed millions of guns. (Well, when I say millions, I don't know how many, but most of them.)
So there you have it. The only problem is that for some stupid reason, ppl are more interested in freedom than true safety...:rolleyes:
As someone mentioned - no responsible person ever manages to defend themselves with a gun. Only criminals do.
You're playing semantics here. I didn't ever say that things shouldn't exist because they are unnecessary. I said that nobody is needed to do unnecessary things. If it's dangerous then it's their choice to do it.Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
You seem very stuck on the idea that only things that are necessary should exist. There's no need for us to have computers, and yet no one is gonna take them away.
I agree that people have a right to defend themselves. But I disagree with your rationale of how to do it. Are we going to put gun racks in every school room so that the kids are in a position to return fire? I think that's what you're saying when you say everyone has a right to protect themselves from gunfire with gunfire.Quote:
The fact of the matter is, these things do exist, and just because someone chooses a "risky" profession, it doesn't mean that they have less of a right to protect themselves.
Well, if we would stop electing nutless politicians things never would have gotten to this. I think your country has struck a really good balance. Guns for those who need them and others will have to work very hard to get them. Then they have to do everything they can to stay out of harm's way. I don't really have a problem with guns. I have a problem who defend them to the point of irrationality and never admit to the problems caused by guns. They're the ones who really scare me.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
So there you have it. The only problem is that for some stupid reason, ppl are more interested in freedom than true safety...:rolleyes:
As someone mentioned - no responsible person ever manages to defend themselves with a gun. Only criminals do.
Out here, there are still shootings, and stabbings quite often. But you'll find that a large proportion of those are gang-related. Not someone running into a shop with a gun and killing the owner. Unless the owner tries to fight back, which is stupid. You can't beat a man with a gun. Well, not without significant training and experience anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
NW - That's kind of the whole basis of my argument. Criminals/The irresponsible will still find a way to get guns legal or not.
:)
But the point of this thread in the first place was a school shooting. In my opinion, the sorts of people who 'snap' and lay waste like this aren't generally criminals. They are 'normal' ppl who do stupid things. These people don't have the connections or the time to go find a gun on the black market. They snap, and they find the first thing they can to unleash their anger. If that weren't so easy to find, then this sort of tragedy wouldn't happen.
The way to stop criminals getting/using guns is to give police more power I reckon. *Someone* just proposed police be given the right to randomly search ppl on the street, following a pretty psycho stabbing a week ago. And the ****wits in the 'civil liberties' groups are 'outraged' because it's an invasion of privacy or some such. Arseholes - I hope they or someone they know gets attacked like this, and see how they feel about their 'freedom' then...:mad: :rolleyes:
I for one, would support such a move, i've no problem being searched. Of course, I don't carry a gun, a knife or drugs in my pockets...:rolleyes:
cafeenman - your point about ppl choosing to work in convenience stores - I would argue against that. I agree with crptc that ppl should be able to defend themselves, and that runing a shop like that may not always be a choice a person gets to make. Some people can do no better, and have a family to support. What, I think needs to be done, is something along the lines of a metal detector in the doors of these shops, police-call alarms (and more police to respond to these alarms), video-surveillance, and insurance. Not guns.
I just take exception to the 'they chose to work there' line - I disagree with that.
:)