school shooting in Germany (no spam)

[der Moench]

@ C Elegans: In some respects it hardly seems that Germany could make it more difficult to obtain a weapon (legally). To get one you must be a member of a shooting club, and I understand that those clubs enforce various requirements themselves (training, etc). But from what I have heard, the issue is now revolving around age. They are talking about not allowing "younger" people to own fire-arms. Spiegel (on-line magazine) today has a headline asking what age should be considered "volljaehrigkeit" (not sure of a good translation; "full agedness," literally - mature - "of age").

I think the shooter was 17 - ? Which means they must allow 16 years and up to own guns. I think they are looking at making that 18 or 21.

Again, the influx of weapons from eastern Europe may make such a law ineffective: I think it is getting easier and easier to own illegal weapons. The gun lobby in the US has a slogan: "Outlaw guns, and the only people with guns will be outlaws," and this is used as an argument in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to own weapons (for self-protection). You may or may not agree with the logic, but it appears that Germany will have to start looking at such issues. Sadly.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by der Moench
The gun lobby in the US has a slogan: "Outlaw guns, and the only people with guns will be outlaws," and this is used as an argument in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to own weapons (for self-protection). You may or may not agree with the logic, but it appears that Germany will have to start looking at such issues. Sadly.

Not to go off on a rant, but if you do outlaw guns, you might as well outlaw knives.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking guns away will not stop someone from killing. It will only allow the strong to force the weak to do their bidding or be killed.

The thing with the US and guns, if you allow one type of gun to be outlawed, the gun control people think of this as a victory and then start on the next gun. (Give an inch and they take a mile) And the NRA knows this. They will fight every attempt because of the way the other side plays.

IMHO no one should have a auto/semi matic assaut rifle. But if you give up the right to bear this arm, what will they ask next? Semiautomatic Shotguns? Semiautomatic Handguns? Plain Shotguns? Plain Hand guns? See where I'm going here. They (being the the Gun control lobby) are not happy to get just the "Not even have a need of" guns outlawed. They want every gun banned and this will never fly in the US.

[fable]

Originally posted by der Moench
The article talks mostly about a CSU member named Beckstein, but a higher member of the CDU, Stoiber, has made similar comments.

That higher member, Herr Stoiber, is actually one of two candidates for the post of German Chancellor later this year. In and of himself, Stoiber is a loud nuisance often referred to in Germany as "the Bavarian pitbull," and lacks a ready core of supporters outside his Bavarian homeland. This issue is typical of the kind of disgusting sleaze he tends to trail around. Even Deutsche Welle last night repeatedly referred to such political grandstanding with contempt, and they always refrain from taking political sides on any issue.

[der Moench]

@Weasel: you are correct. While such debates are old news here in the US, Europeans may have to start reading through some old Heston speaches to get a feel for it. (Lets not get into that debate here, though.)

@fable: Most of the name-calling here has been caused by the remarks made by Mr. Beckstein. As the articles linked above indicate, he tried to "blame" the Minister for Family (a Ms. Christine Bergmann) for not acting on some earlier legislation. After that, the SPD accused the CDU/CSU of trying to get political mileage out of the tragedy. I have not yet seen anyone accuse Stoiber in the way that they have gone after Beckstein.

In any event, it may seem disgusting that such things are being discussed so soon after the shooting and during elections, but it is not as if people could simply ignore the issue right now because it is election time. If the respective parties have different views on the issue, now is an appropriate time to raise them - as sad as that may be.

[Trym]

@ Weasel

There two laws that control the possesion of firearms in Germany:

1. "Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz" (lit. weapons-of-war-control-law):
NO private person is allowed to own weapons of war (for example aussault rifles, submachine guns...)
2. Waffengesetz (weapons law)
Private people that have a certain need for fire arms are allowed to own them (half-automatically only)
These reasons are for example:
a) professional reasons (bodyguards, private guarding comp.; official examinations required)
b) if you're a seriously threatened person
c) hunters (official examinations required, pretty difficult, since it includes much more than just the handling of weapons and marksmanship)
d) sports marksmen
a-d: You're only allowed to buy fire arms if you have a "clean" police record and to bear them in connection with the need you have (a hunter may only bear a weapon while hunting, or on a shooting range. While transporting, the ammo must be seperated from the weapon, for example in a car: ammo in the glove compartment, weapon in the trunk).

Vialotions of both laws are considered criminal offenses. A vialation of the "weapons-of-war-control-law" will normaly result in higher legal punishments)

Some "cold weapons" are also part of the weapons law. For example Blackjacks of a certain quality. Moreover, you're not permitted to bear anything with blade longer than 15cm (5.9") outside of your own living space.

[der Moench]

Ah! Trym; thanks for the information. I was hoping you might stop by with a more accurate view of these items. The restrictions you list are even more limiting than I had thought would be in place.

[VoodooDali]

Originally posted by Weasel


Not to go off on a rant, but if you do outlaw guns, you might as well outlaw knives.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking guns away will not stop someone from killing. It will only allow the strong to force the weak to do their bidding or be killed.

The thing with the US and guns, if you allow one type of gun to be outlawed, the gun control people think of this as a victory and then start on the next gun. (Give an inch and they take a mile) And the NRA knows this. They will fight every attempt because of the way the other side plays.

IMHO no one should have a auto/semi matic assaut rifle. But if you give up the right to bear this arm, what will they ask next? Semiautomatic Shotguns? Semiautomatic Handguns? Plain Shotguns? Plain Hand guns? See where I'm going here. They (being the the Gun control lobby) are not happy to get just the "Not even have a need of" guns outlawed. They want every gun banned and this will never fly in the US.

With the influx of guns from eastern Europe, I think that Germany is unfortunately getting a taste of the problem we have in the USA. We have huge borders, and it is impossible to control the flow of firearms or whatever across our borders. Even if guns were outlawed there would still be guns here, just as there are still illegal drugs everywhere.

However, I have always found the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument to be very shallow. Sure, you can kill someone with a knife or your fists, but it takes a lot more time, and you have more opportunities to change your mind. With a gun, it just takes one shot--only one second of bad judgement, and it's all over. I am for some form of gun control here. I don't think that someone with a spousal abuse record should ever be able to go into a gun store and acquire a gun easily. I also think they should emphasize making "smart" guns that will only fire for the owner. This would prevent a lot of shootings when kids get a hold of their parent's weapons.

[C Elegans]

There are crimes in society that we will probably never be able to control or prevent, there will always be people who kill others no matter how strict the laws are and there will always be severely disturbed persons whos behaviour is extremely difficult to predict. However, in order to miniminse certain types of crimes, I think gun control is of importance. My arguments are:

- With a gun, the perpertrator can control a much larger crowd of people than with a knife or a baseball bat since the range allows the perpertrator to stay outside physical distance from the victims.

- When you are attacked by a violent offender, it's easier to escape from a knife than from a gun, since the gun can be fired at distance. (Unfortunately, I have personal experience of being attacked with a knife, and believe me, I would never have dared to run away from those guys if they had had a gun.)

- Guns in the hands of criminals put more risks on the police. The police can act a lot swifter and thereby possibly save more lives if a criminal has a knife compared to a gun.

- The easy and swift killing you can do with a gun, means, like Voodoo points out, that one split second of bad judgement can kill another person. This is of importance esp in the perspective that most criminal offender have impulse control problems. If you have a strong tendency to act on brief impulses, the possible speed of killing makes a difference.

[HighLordDave]

The problem in the United States is that both the NRA and anti-gun advocates equate the terms "gun control" with "gun prohibition".

I don't know who started it, but the NRA has adopted a seige mentality believing as our friend Weasel says that if the gun control lobby gets one or two concessions they will not stop there, but rather become emboldened to seek more controls and harsher penalties. For their part, the anti-gun lobby has stopped going to the small change measures and goes straight to major demands because they know that the NRA isn't going to settle.

This sort of entrenched rigid mentality is thoroughly unproductive because neither side trusts the other and no compromise agreements can be reached.

There is ample evidence that gun controls work. For instance, I read a study some years ago that showed that when firearms were used in domestic disputes, in something like 90% of the incidents, the firearm had been purchased in the 24 hours previous to the crime. This suggests that a waiting period of at least 48 hours would prevent a "crime of passion". What the study did not address was whether or not the perpetrator would have still committed the crime with another weapon (ie-knife, bludgeon, etc.), but the general conclusion was that a firearm pruchase waiting perios would result in fewer domestic violence homicides.

I do not think that taking firearms away from everyone is productive or desirable, because there are legitimate uses for guns. I also live in a country which was founded through an armed insurrection, so the presence of guns among the populace sends a strong message to the government that not only are Americans willing to fight for their government, but that we are also willing to fight against their government if it becomes necessary (Timothy McVeigh and his buddies being on the extreme end of this thinking).

The level of gun control in society is something that we must reconcile without the polarisation that we currently see in the United States. On the one hand, I do not believe that everyday people have a need for hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns, .50 calibre sniper rifles, assault weapons, grenade launchers or any other military-grade hardware, and nor do they need what guns that are legal so badly that they can't wait 72 hours to get them after the purchase date. However, I am also not so naive to believe that gun prohibitions would have stopped John Hinckley from trying to assassinate President Reagan or the shooter at the school in Erfurt. We must find a middle ground.

[Mr Sleep]

If there are no guns then there are no death by Guns. It isn't as simple as that, but i think it is something to strive for

Although it is a fact that there is more spent on make-up every year in America than on armaments

[HighLordDave]

But people will always be able to get guns. If they're outlawed, people will get illegal guns. The IRA gets guns, the Contras got guns, the Mujihadeen got guns, right-wing militias get guns; all exist in environments where the arms they are/wre using are prohibited. Simply outlawing firearms is not the answer, because then only outlaws will have firearms.

What we need is a fundamental change in our culture that stops seeing a gun as the solution to problems. Beyond domestic violence and school shootings, guns are also instrumental in gang violence, racial hatred and militant religious fundamentalism. Through various media outlets (often the news) we see people solving their problems with guns; sometimes they're reviled, but often they're glorified. Settling disputes through a shooting war has become the most expedient way of solving problems and that trickles down to our everyday lives.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
But people will always be able to get guns. If they're outlawed, people will get illegal guns. The IRA gets guns, the Contras got guns, the Mujihadeen got guns, right-wing militias get guns; all exist in environments where the arms they are/wre using are prohibited. Simply outlawing firearms is not the answer, because then only outlaws will have firearms.

I know, but i am still right, if there isn't one gun on planet Earth no one can be killed by one can they Outlawing isn't quite what i mean, i mean no guns full stop. I don't think it will ever happen since your argument rings true, people are still getting shot in the UK even though we have Gun laws.

What we need is a fundamental change in our culture that stops seeing a gun as the solution to problems

Very true