Winnenden massacre could lead to paintball and laser tag ban

[floatright](attached image)[/floatright]Right on the back of probably the most ineffective and ridiculous bits of legislation one could possibly imagine in an attempt to ban [topic="133646">child porn on the internet[/topic], comes an even more ineffective and ridiculous bit of legislation.

As a response to the Winnenden shootings, all games based on shooting people, such as Paintball and even Lazer force type games are to be banned in Germany. While some experts suggested that actually stopping people from having guns at home could stop random nutcases getting guns and actually killing people, and that sports shooters should leave their weapons at the shooting range, they have decided that banning a fecking game will stop the problem. Will water pistols and water bomb fights be next on the list?

Other measure that will be taken are that weapon stashes have to be locked with a biometric lock and the age for owning a weapon be raised from 14 to 18 years. I guess will at least delay further massacres for about 6 months until people like Tim K from the Winnenden shooting turn 18, can legally get a weapon and shoot the crap out of everyone.

Of course, military service where the government teaches you how to actually kill people and how to shoot a real gun is still not only OK, but compulsory.

The stupidity of these people is truly astounding, and I really wonder if they could be any more incompetent if they tried.

Paintballers and airsofters are all wierdos anyway.

Seriously though this is a stupid knee jerk reaction, I suppose bits of wood and shouting bang while running around the woods will be banned next.

Mind you in some peoples minds doing that is already deemed to be damaging so this next step shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

I was waiting for this ban. Its not as though the sport is that popular here as it is in the US South. It is interesting how many churches in the Southern US have paintball groups for the kids to show them the way.

It is an (easy target/easy win) for the politicians, what else is new? Showing your true colors? Or is this another urban myth?

I find the fascinating incompetence of German politicians (see various smoking bans, car-production tax breaks dressed up as environmental benefits, inability to ski downhill without killing someone, etc.) rather cute actually. I'd much rather they wasted their time on ineffectual legislation like this than spend it systematically selling public services to private companies and removing any remaining civil liberties, as British politicians do (ID cards, removal of right to protest, police violence, data collection, over-zealous airport security, etc. etc.). All politicians are dangerous, so at an election it's important to choose the party that will do the least damage, and the ineffective coalition that Germany has is just perfect for this damage-limitation exercise. The damage wreaked on Britain when Blair had a 160-seat majority is there for all to see.

Do you know anything about Paintball, or are you just spouting random things that pop into your head?

Have you even been to the south in the US?

Please, for all of humanity. Don't procreate.

Zing!

Look at what GWB did to America in eight years. There is legislation that would benefit the people socially, ex. health care, increase in retirement benefits, better education for the youth, more jobs & better paying jobs for the youth, etc. that needs to be taken care of, that would not be done in the above scenario, since each political party is trying to one up the other.

Oh I agree, political parties should do what benefits the public. But since these things rarely benefit themselves or their friends, they tend not to get done. "Nothing" becomes the best we can hope for when the alternative is "further damage".

Not another urban myth. Truth be told.You are just a sprout who is random in life aren't you? Duh, Isa dunno nutt"n 'bout nutt'n. I am sure you have not lived long enough to know the answers to all of life. Please Do US all a favor speak sensibly upon topics you have had more than 1 year experience upon. Do you even know how to create anything except your own waste?

Something needs to be done here, banning paintball and laser tag is just stupid and will not do anything good, it's the same kind of ridiculous law they have for violent video games. The politicians here a really clueless/useless... the smoking ban is a disaster, the child porn website block ban whatever is a joke, now this... I cannot help but be like some people here and wonder what's next.

What's next? Testosterone is to be banned in Germany.

Footnote: We're part way there already with the Sitzpinkler.

and all those guys with shiny gold and silver motifs on their t-shirts

on the face of it this does seem stupid when the obvious and sensible thing to do would be to ban all but professionals (army, police etc) from owning guns completely.

Next they will have to ban those Cowboy and Indian weekends that Germans like so much. All those guys running around pretending to shoot at each other, living in teepees and wearing war paint. It's just a step away from a shooting rampage I'd say.

You mean like this?

absolutely ridiculous.

This just boggles my mind. I always had a very low opinion of the political parties here and this just confirms it for me.

To ban harmless team games because they trivialise violence, but not very radically restrict weapons to the clubs is not a move that has any sense after these amok attacks. I don't play paint ball or laser tag, it's too geeky for me, but I don't see the connection between these games and the shootings. Are they trying to suggest that if Germans are exposed to games with an element of shooting they immediately morph into psychopaths? That's a scary thought.

They will probably outlaw toy guns next. After that football matches (I don't like football but understand it means a lot to people) because it encourages violent thoughts toward the other team. But guns will still probably be fine.

High powered guns killed those people, not paint pellets or computer software. To take these steps without banning high powered guns outside shooting clubs is to trivialise the attacks.

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a country full of dangerous idiot children.

you are!

Seriously, I had a long talk yesterday with a friend of mine that is a teacher here, the kids are lacking social skills, so much is put on academics in the shools that the children do not get any life skills or properly learn any social skills. Tolerance of different types of people is nill here.

The young man that did the last shooting spree, he was an outsider and taunted from the other kids. If there was a sense of tolerance maybe none of this would happen?

Putting Bans of guns is just dumb and not the cause of the problem.

This kid wasn't a paintballer or a laser tagger - but he was an enthusiastic shooter who spent a lot of time and honed his skills at sharp shooting ranges.

So wouldn't the proper knee-jerk reaction be to ban shooting ranges and outlaw shooting clubs, rather than worrying about paintball or computer games?

Yes

Moderated down to nothing high powered outside the clubs

That they pin this on paintball is disturbing - it's the availability of weapons that's the problem not team games

Why don't you just shut the f up about things as terrible as that shooting. Particularily stop explaining away the unjustifiable cruelness of that sucker with society... Writing something as crude and bs as that and then connecting it with the shooting of 15 children is ...

What if there is no proper knee jerk reaction? What if history is full of kids who have been outsiders and have been taunted? What if history is full of psychopaths? What if history shows us they will find a way to kill others, ...knives, poison or whatnot. And it is usually but not always men in history.

Maybe we do the best we can do without totally restricting the freedoms of the other millons of normal people who don't.

Actually...if they want to ban paintballing outright, then surely they should ban shooting clubs outright too - to maintain some sort of consistency in the law...

I'm not in favour of knee-jerk reactions. I think it's a ridiculous idea banning paintballing but wouldn't favour an outright ban for sporting shooters either.

I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of it...

have another cup of coffee, might do you some good.

I never justified the shooting, re-read my post. Banning guns will not get rid of the problem, teach kids tolerance and respect for each other (something you are lacking) and maybe, just maybe there will no longer be those outsider students, taunted from the bullies, laughed at from the pretty girls, outcast because they do not fit in 100%, these are the kids going on these rampages.

Knee jerk reaction would maybe be to shut the clubs down for 6 months to a year to show them that the government means business and that the clubs need to watch out. Then open them up (the ones that can afford the security requirements) but with weapons held there only.

There will always be "outsider students", it's the nature of humankind. It's the same in any culture.

Actually Hazza I kinda figured that about you just wanted to borrow your word

They want to be seen taking some tough action after Winnenden but they don´t want to annoy the gun owners among their constituents. Therefore they are looking for some soft target. Quite the hypocrites. Where did the guns that were used in massacres like Erfurt and Winnenden come from? They were legally owned by well earning, "law abiding" citizens, quite the typical CDU voters. Well, I´ll write to my MP and tell him in no uncertain terms that he better shouldn't count on getting my votes if he believes that his party can bullshit themselves out of taking real action now. Unlike the US the overwhelming majority of people do not own guns and there is no reason why people should tolerate the dangers caused by guns.

Well said. Exactly my opinion too.

I guess they could just let the military take over the schools to teach them some discipline:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...te-schools.html

Sure? The guy in Winnenden certainly didn't appear as if he were lacking weapons training.

I say we just gather several hundred paintballers, and go repaint the Reichstag and Kansleramt.

I totally agree...DO they know anything about Paintball?? We have a saying in the South...American by birth, Southern by the grace of God...they just wouldn't understand in their far-left liberal minds. And these are the same people that want to bash Pres. George W...but let me tell ya...if Obama, who has the same ridiculous ideals, brings peace to the Middle East...the Rapture is here and for all the non-believers, they're going to know hell on Earth...then they won't have to worry about ridiculously banning Paintball! Morons!

I didn't realize laser tag was legal here. Never seen any place offer it. (Shame because it's fun.)

I like it. When do the games begin? Or to put a PC tone to the comment, When does the redecorating begin?

It sounds very general. Anything based on shooting people is banned?

What about Nerf guns? We have plenty of version in the US. I have not seen any here.

Or super soakers/ powerful water guns? Again, not in toy stores.

Toy bow/arrow or crossbows?

"The pussification of Germany is now complete."

That is no doubt the reason for the killings, but I doubt you'll find any school in the world that doesn't have outsider kids like this. They should most certainly focus their efforts on these kids as well, but I doubt you can catch all these cases.It would solve a large part of it. There are always going to be nutcases out there. What we need to do is ensure they cannot get a hold of weapons that allow them to kill on a large scale. I cannot see any reason whatsoever for a member of the public to have a hand gun. These should be completely banned and if used for sport shooting, be locked up at the club where they cannot make it into public spaces. You could argue that hunters or farmers need guns, but they only need certain types of weapons, and certainly not semi-automatic or concealable guns which allow these type of massacres to take place.

So to stop something like Apeldoorn happening again we just ban cars?

but not every outsider snaps do they?

Yes, there will always be outsiders, but how much they are taunted does not need to happen. Outsiders can just be those that do not fit into a group, there were lots when I grew up, but none of the other groups taunted or teased to hurt, there was some bullying, but there was enough other kids to 'protect' the bullied kid.

See, I grew up with guns, never thought of it, we had them in the house, the truck, the front door at the farm, but we had respect for them and for human life. So, I just have a differnt point of view and interest.

I grew up playing War, Cowboys and Indians, had cap guns, BB guns, play rifles and guns, none of the kids I grew up with (and some of them were outsiders- but they were not taunted by the other kids) went on a shooting spree or flipped out.

I'm not sure what Apeldoorn is, but cars serve a purpose and guns do not.That's all very well, but some people are mentally deranged. Why do you need a handgun or a semi-automatic weapon? If they served a purpose, I might agree with you, but they don't. Why can't we all just agree to ban these, so that nutcases don't have ready access to them?

He was referring to this: [topic="132932">Car hits crowd watching Dutch royal motorcade[/topic].

Cars serve a purpose, To get from place to place. But they also kill people = Lets ban cars.

Knives serve a purpose, Cutting Food. But they also kill people = Lets ban knives.

Baseball bats serve a purpose, Its a required tool to play baseball. But they also kill people = Lets ban Baseball bats.

I could go on and on and on about so may other things but lets stop here. Do you see just how stupid the above sounds.

Banning guns, Esp. ones as harmless as Laser tag and paintball guns while leaving REAL GUNS pretty much untouched

is such a useless idea.. The people responsible for this legislation should be taken outback and shot themselves.

The point with guns is that they are able to kill people in an easy and quick way. Knives and baseball bats are not comparable, I'd like to see someone going on a successful mass killing with those implements.

I don't think anyone would suggest that private people should be able to own nuclear weapons - because they serve no purpose and in the wrong hands can do a lot of damage. Exactly the same reason for hand guns or semi automatic weapons in my opinion.

Sorry, but I just got an image of someone trying to go deer hunting with nuclear bombs.

I have no problem with tighter restrictions on hand guns, but rifles should be allowed. They're a bit tough to hide in a pocket, and do serve a useful purpose.

As for paintball, I think a ban is truly silly. It's just a game, and no different from when we used to shoot nerf balls at each other as kids.

(attached image)(attached image)

But they still KILL PEOPLE!!! Do you really think it matters to the Govt. just how fast people died or just that "People died".

And that is what the law change is about.. In the end it doesn't matter what the law says, if someone is determined

enough they will get the hardware they need to do what they want.

The only way to have any affect on mass shootings and rampages is to ban ALL GUNS.. Not just the ones

that are pretty much harmless big boy toys. If they were really worried about somebody training with Airsoft/paintball

guns etc. to plan an attack on say a school, then why don't they also pressure surrounding countries to do the same.

After all if you can't get what your looking for in Germany, you can just goto Czech, Poland or Austria..

[quote name='Darkknight' date='May 10 2009, 6:15 pm' post='1638600']harmless big boy toys.

(attached image)

A spud gun pictured earlier. Spud guns have come under fire recently.

Well I think they should care. After a similar massacre in Australia, the government banned semi-automatic guns there for this exact reason.

Handguns are absolutely useful for protection. You've been living in Munich too long perhaps, but there are places where a person can get attacked on the street, and mace doesn't have range. Nor would it deter a large group of attackers. I think, though, that this kiddo wouldn't have gotten his hands on a gun license in the first place, so the culprit in this case is unsafe storage of firearms.

I'm pretty glad we don't live in the wild west...

I wouldn't want to live anywhere, where people carry guns so that they can shoot at people in the middle of a city. And how much range do you want? Are you suggesting that people shoot at attackers once they try to run with whatever they've mugged you for??

What is that???

Sometimes a gun is useful for protection without actually having to fire it. Attackers know guns can fire and make more damage than mace. And when held at a distance they can convince someone not to try and bash you on the head with a club.

That is what it is.

Well, I wonder where you have to carry a gun to defend yourself in Germany. Moreover, you do seem to misunderstand gun licensing laws here. Hardly anyone receives a license to carry a gun for protection. The vast majority of people who have a gun license are only entitled to own a gun and to transport it (unloaded) to and from a shooting range.

Here's a little reality ... it's about people and their misguided motivation ... not the implement. Last year the largest mass killing was in the Congo. Over 600 people were killed. Weapon of choice ... machete. Yes, they have a purpose but anything can be misused for a violent purpose. Banning items has little effect in reality. You're wrapped around the axle about the efficiency of the implement ... semi-auto, single shot or whatever. It's the motivation and how they got there ... people bullied by others, misconception of fairness in life, jealousy and then it foments into hate ...

Please don't think this is a justification to open flood gates to allow anything to be sold to anybody. Bottom line is ... Until you address the motivation, you'll have little impact.

I would agree with you about Deutschland, but I was answering a post that wasn't restricted that way. I agree it might be a good idea to have the guns locked at the range, although this poses many, many other problems, mostly security related.

Aah, that old chestnut.

The problem is, however, that knives, machetes, baseball bats, cricket bats, garden gnomes and fruit bowls all have a primary function which is generally different to killing people.

We've all heard the stories of Eskimo kids gutting fish with knives at the age of three and managing to not disembowel anyone in a fit of rage and violence.

With guns, however, it's completely different. They are designed for the soul purpose of relieving something of life as quickly as possible.

A farmer with a shotgun is one thing. But a civilian with a pistol in his pocket?

People are weird. I'd feel much better without gun toting weirdos around.

The only time you'd get me interested is if there was a threat of a zombie apocalypse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LELAoEoz5I

That's the beauty of simulated violence...

Right! That's why I play Left4Dead computer game.

Are you playing the highly censored German version?

As a long time target shooter, hunter and ex-soldier, I'm as worried about the developing social and antisocial developments in the society as a whole, it's not just here in Germany, but is happening all over the world, and the economical crisis is accelerating the process.

I joined the British Army as a 16 year old boy, they had me running all over the training areas of the world with an SLR or SMG or even a GPMG. After my service was over I drifted into target shooting, air rifles and pistols, and as I got better at that I moved to small bore target shooting (.22LR). Having done that for a few years I then got interested in large calibre shooting, did my Hunters course, passed the test, and started hunting, still I carried on target shooting with varying degrees of success and I enjoy ma sport.

Now just a reminder for those that haven't, didn't or couldn't grasp the fact, I or my weapons didn't kill anybody, I and many like myself enjoy their hobby/sport and we realise just how dangerous the tools of our hobby/sport can be if they fall into the wrong hands, so we have always taken precautions to prevent this from happening.

Listening to the antis or those who just want to stick their oar in (killjoys) is like passive smoking, annoying at best but really rather boring.

People kill people, a firearm may facilitate that, by making it easier for the killer to do his evil deed.

Tony

I play the UK version. In the German version I think the zombies come round and tell you about undead rights and Biosupermarkte, leave a leaflet and clean a couple of windows then leave after nibbling next door's dogfood.

Here's a little reality - the implement matters. Some weapons allow untrained, weak people to cause massive damage. These weapons should be banned. Although I doubt that your quote about the Congo is correct, even if it is it is besides the point. Do you think those 600 people were killed by one random nutcase with a machette? Of course not. An army of people with machettes can of course do a lot of killing, but that's not what we're talking about there."We" obviously didn't take precautions because one of your shooting buddies in Winnenden allowed access to his guns by his crazy kid who killed multiple people. No one is suggesting that there is a ban on sport shooting, just that your guns should stay locked up in the shooting hall and not be allowed out of it. And I'm not suggesting a ban on all weapons, just ones that can be concealed or cause maximum damage in a small space of time. Does your hunting require you to have a pistol or a semi-automatic weapon?

I'm sure most gun owners are responsible, but you have to pay somewhat of a price for those that are not for the sake of society as a whole.

No, sadly other people are paying the price for them.

Computer games ban agitation and team sports like paintballing banned. High powered guns not even restricted to shooting clubs...I feel some paraphrased Hamlet coming on...no..trying.. to ..restrain..can't stop...shout coming..watch out...

THERE'S SOMETHING ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF [s]DENMARK[/s] GERMANY

Oh dear, sorry. How embarrassing.

Probably been playing too many computer games.

I am glad I get to leave this place and go back to the land of the free.

Scary words, taking away freedom of citizens "for the sake of society as a whole."

But Europe / Germany likes to limit things like free speech and gun rights and video game rights and trash rights and fishing rights and sailing rights and golfing rights and paintball rights.

Remember, Russia is rearming. Hope those EU forces can stand up as deterrent to the bear...

Don't worry about the EU. Remember, we have the shooting clubs to defend us. LOL

Freedom to me means being able to walk down the street without any fear of being shot. If your country is so free, why can't you personally own nuclear weapons? There are always limits on freedoms, the question is where to draw the line. If freedom to you means owning an automatic weapon, then I'm glad I don't live where you do.

Masked person stabs high school girlThe citizens and Mayor of Bonn have urged Politicians in Berlin to ban knives too... (Just Kidding.. But it wouldn't surprise me)

Because guns can be used responsibly, while nukes can't be used without irradiating large swaths of land.

There is risk in everything you do. Again, it is where you draw the line. Maybe I should be able to drive down the autobahn without fear of some Diete…[/quote]Arguing about nuclear weapons is ridiculous. However, I bet some of our rich citizens could afford them if they wanted them...

As for automatic weapons, they are available if you have the right licensing in the US (in some places).

Outlawing paintball and violent video games. Classic.

The Land of the Free - with the world´s largest prison population and where you have to be 21 years old to buy a can of beer. Good joke.

A small price to pay for not having annoying little kids in your bars.

No, but we'll soon see legislation requiring a license to buy knives and hold them, and penal measures for people who don't lock their knives in a special knife cabinet in the kitchen. After all, who needs to carry a knife outside of a kitchen?

Germany put a new law in effect last year in April which does not allow you to carry a knife(fixed blade) longer than 12 centimeters. So, they are up on that one, too. Fine of 10,000 eu. if caught on person.

Really, try sitting in a public place drinking a nice cold beer in the States, you'll soon find out how free America is.

I've done this hundreds of times, its a local ordinance in places not a nation wide one.

Doesn't matter whether it's a national one or not, it's still illegal in a great many places. Still you can at least tote a gun, even if you can't have a beer. I know which one I'd rather do.

Lubbock Texas is the largest city where you can not drink alcohol, but you can produce it. You can buy a gun there, too.

City slogan "Visit Lubbock- The Texas you've always dreamed of..."

Edit:

Here's a new article about their newest decision:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1668629

Anyway, it is doubtful whether any law that prohibits paintball would stand up in court.

I thought paintballing only existed so that "work hard play hard" arseholes in sales or marketing could organise pathetic team building events? If this is the first step towards a German, and eventually perhaps, worldwide ban on shitty team building crap that companies somehow think are in some way actually useful, when really all they need to do is provide loads of booze and let "bonding" happen in the time honoured way of simply getting people blind drunk, then I say good riddance to paintballing.

You have been able to drink in Lubbock for 30 years and from my friends at tech I believe you can buy it at stores now too.

Lubbock does, however, remain a gigantic shithole full of red dirt.

In Kennesaw, Georgia (USA) every household head MUST own a gun.

Now Now let's not bring Lubbock into the poor gun fight. And they have a wonderful almost Vegas like (yes technically out of the city limits) stip of Neon lighted Beer stores. Makes the whole buying experience unique.

I do believe that the Lubbockites probably own more than 2+ guns per household, if a census were to be taken....

After the UT-Tech game this year I wouldn't hesitate to bring Lubbock into a nuclear exchange.

The only significant cities in Texas worse than Lubbock are El Paso and Waco.

In which country in the world is it commonplace for ordinary citizens to carry guns in the street in case you get mugged? Nowhere in the western world, that's for sure...

And the fact that you think this would be a good idea and to be encouraged simply astounds me.

OK I know this is a serious discussion but lilplatinum now has me really laughing...You do remember the sign for TT(Texas Tech not Toytown) is a ...GUN. Guess it helped 'em this year with the Horns. LOL

OK sorry for that digression

Revenge will be sweet this year, plus Tech gets to come and see what a city in Texas that doesn't suck is like

I don't know what you normally use in order to read, but my money is on your ass.

Let's go through this again. You said you don't see any use for a gun other than killing other people. I showed you just that - a use for a gun that doesn't involve killing other people. From there on you take it to mean that I support this being a "commonplace" thing for "ordinary" citizens. Something you surely have found in your ass, because I never wrote, thought or meant anything remotely similar.

You're obviously the one who can't read. Please quote where I said that the only use for a gun is for killing other people. You won't be able to - because I NEVER wrote that.

But getting back - this is what you actually wrote:I read from this that you're suggesting it should be OK for ordinary citizens to carry handguns with them in the streets in case they get attacked. Obviously if you believe it's a good idea to allow this, then you're nuts. If you think I've misinterpreted what you said, then feel free to correct me and explain what you meant, and to which people you were referring to if not "ordinary citizens"

The fact that you think that they should only be able to wave it around and you believe nobody would actually shoot someone with it is pretty laughable too.

Packing heat because you are afraid of being mugged is certainly one of the best ways of ending up shot or in jail.

You're right, that wasn't you, that was Hutcho. Can't tell the difference sometimes. It was him I was answering. Certain people are targets for attack because of who they are. I know people that carry state secrets in their heads and would be prime targets for a kidnapping. These people get trained at using handguns and get licenses for them. Other people, for example people who are rich in poor countries and would be held for ransom. If I were one of them, I'd make sure the chances of me getting kidnapped would be as low as possible. I believe there are ways to train such groups of people, before they get their license, not to...Unless, of course, it is in self defense and they've exhausted other options.

In fact, I know quite a few people who do that (not being afraid of getting mugged) and have never been shot, even shot at, or in jail. Guess your opinions are at odds with reality, huh?

In Germany they keep their pet hazza in their hutcho - so easy mistake.

If I am ever unfortunate enough to be at the receiving end of some crazed nutjob's frenzied attack I just hope he has a gun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ife-guilty.html

So now you've gone from explaining to us that we've lived in Munich for too long, but other places are more dangerous and that's why people should be able to walk around with handguns - to some kind of strange James Bond type scenario.

Bizarre...Which is around the time that innocent bystanders have a real chance of getting caught in the cross-fire and killed.

However, if I am anyone else on the bus, or anyone driving past at the time, then I'd be pretty relieved that he hasn't got a gun...

Yeah but if other passengers on this bus had guns they could have pumped this wackjob's head full of lead (safely ricocheting inside his skull) and sent him to where he belongs then at least the TV movie would have a happy ending.

Right, so it's either - every man goes into Penny and buys a hand cannon, or it's only James Bond. Listen, it's obvious you have an agenda, that agenda is "no guns". My agenda is - let's make intelligent, well thought out decisions whether certain people need certain things to protect themselves because of who they are, and if they do get a gun, let's make sure they know how to use it. Clearly, you have never held a hand gun or received any training with using one. In other words you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing new there though.

Unless, of course, you were the person with the gun, in which case you would see that atrocity going on, produce it from its holster, and save an innocent man from being carved up by a lunatic.

My agenda is not "no guns". But I don't think that hand-guns should be allowed by the general public. I don't care how much training an individual has had, there is far more downside to allowing private individuals from walking around town with concealed guns for protection, than any advantage...If you're rich or important enough and scared of being mugged, then hire professional security people - who are uniformed and identified as gun carriers in that way. Just allowing regular folk to do some kind of course and then let them carry guns around the streets as they please is nothing more than a recipe for disaster.

Clearly, you are an idiot...Right, so the guy being attacked is possibly already dead, and then you stand up and start blazing away...

But what then if other people on the bus who might also have their guns and are sitting some rows away, haven't really seen what's going on and just hear a scream and see you standing there shooting. What do you think they're going to do?

Guns serve a purpose to... But what you and the government are doing is to put yourself on the moral high horses according to the rule "guns are bad and the gun ownners are a voting minority".

In Apeldoorn there was 6 persons killed and i am quite sure we will se copycats in a future, and how many "geistfahrers" (suicide drivers) is there every year that kill or maim people. Or drunk drivers, i dont se any government proposals about alco-locks on all cars in Germany

Hazza, do you know the reason why El Al flights are not successfully highjacked anymore?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article...RTICLE_ID=38934

Having armed security guards, who's whole job is to provide security on a plane is not something I disapprove of.

But I'd never go anywhere near a plane that allows a cabin full of wanna be security people who don't do security on a full-time, professional basis.

You do remember that 1 of the hijacked 9-11 planes was brought down by a few dozen of these "wanna be security people who don't do security on a full-time, professional basis." people right. Thus saving many others had it went into another building..

But how many of them were carrying guns?

So you think it's OK to let anyone with a gun licence to just carry guns onto planes???

EDIT: Also if guns were allowed in planes, then maybe some passengers would have been carrying them - but you can bet your life that the hijackers would have also been quite a bit more heavily armed as well...

Genie seems to live in a strange world. People who are carrying state secrets and have to defend themselves with guns. At least in the UK it might be more usefull for such people to carry a yellow post it reminding them not to leave those secrets in the bus. Anyway, Genie seems to forget that unfortunately the assailant has the element of surprise working in his favour. To my knowledge the victim who was killed in that bus was asleep at the time of the attack. Carrying a gun wouldn´t have helped him. Yet a whole lot of other people might have been killed if panicked passengers had started to shoot at each other.

BTW, did any of those El Al air marshals ever have to confront a determined and armed hijacker?

People believe me when I say that I understand your concern over firearms.

Firstly my firearms and ammunition are locked away in the correct type's of safes in an un-lived in room in the house, and the keys are stored in another safe in another part of the house. I have two teenage sons and am more that aware of the dangers, I didn't need Winnenden (god have mercy on their souls), to drive that message home.

As to central storage at the shooting clubs, well where should I start:-

The shooting clubs are all over, in Towns and Cities and even in Villages, to centrally store all of the handguns be it revolver's or pistols in each shooters club would be a mammoth logistical task, rooms would have to be fortified and have alarms fitted, etc etc.

Criminals would know where to go and break in to get their weapons when they needed them.

Target shooter's as a whole are very competitive, and participate in competitions all over the country if not the world, to measure their skill's against others. Not being able to compete with your own weapon's would be adverse to the score, and make it hardly worth the shooters while.

As car fans are always modding their cars, with this gizmo or that gizmo, to get the best performance out of it, we shooters are the same, as the shooting clubs are not always open we would have to wait to try whatever it is we have just bought.

As a hunter, having my "Fangschußwaffe" Revolver locked away in a club house means I won't have it if and when I need it, there are times and situations that make carrying a rifle or shotgun impractical. Like following up on a wounded game animal in thick brush.

I'll explain what I do every time I go shooting or hunting.

Firstly I don the appropriate attire, check to see that I have all of my licences and ID documents, get a set of keys for the gun safes, go to the un-lived in room where they are stored. I then decide which weapons and ammunition I require for the Hunt or day at the range, having done that its open the safes, and pack what I have decided to use in the appropriate range/rifle bag, then I get the ammo that I'll require and lock everything back up, even my range/rifle bags are locked. Everything goes in the boot of the car and I leave the house for the Hunt or the range.

What happened in Winnenden was down to one of our number being afraid that the zombies or whatever may attack in the middle of the night, and he decided to ignore the legal requirements to lock his weapons up.

When I return home, I clean the weapons that I have used and return them to their safes. LOCKED away until the next time that I need them. I'm not rambo, I'm a target shooter and hunter, and I take every aspect of it seriously.

BTW. I worked as an armed security guard in Munich for a decade or so.

As this is a discussion forum and we are debating Collective punishment to protect our society as a whole, the Germans used to have a law that in my opinion should be re-instated to prevent the further spread of certain highly contagious diseases, can anyone guess which law I'm referring to???

Take care.

Tony

As I've said before, I'm sure there are responsible gun owners, so no one needs to drive home the point that you are one of them anymore. The trouble is that there are plenty of irresponsible ones, and it only takes one to cause trouble.

I stand by my point that concealable weapons and weapons such as semi-automatic weapons should be banned for the general public. This would at least limit the amount of damage someone could do.

As for the problems you mentioned with shooting clubs, I say tough luck. I can guarantee you if the choice was banning the clubs altogether or finding a solution whereby people lock their guns up at the club, a solution would be found.

So you are all for Collective punishment???

Tony

There is no collective punishment. There is a small inconvenience for the minority of people in this country that like guns that will ensure that lives are saved.

In any case, I started this thread mainly because of the stupidity of banning paintball and laser shooting games, not because of my opinion that gun laws should be much tougher.

That is where you are wrong, there are 10+ million legal gun owners in Germany which has a population of about 80+ million in total, considering that the legal age to own a real gun was raised to over twenty something a couple of years ago, means that, that minority's voting power will and does make a difference. It won't be an inconvenience in the slightest if all of the said shooting or hunting orientated voters decided to give their votes to an undesirable party as a protest.

At the bottom of my rather long post earlier I posed a question, as nobody has answered I'll allow myself to answer it myself. I was referring to §175 stgb. HIV aids is a killer and it should be banned, in order to achieve this §175 stgb should be re-instated as law, and enforced by the authorities, anyone caught should be registered in a central database and be forced to have compulsory medical tests to get their STD/HIV status and psychological assessment's made by medical professionals to ascertain whether that person is sick or requires corrective surgery. However if the are found to have HIV aids they will then be incarcerated for the rest of their lives in a colony not unlike those that were built for lepers in the past. No I'm not homophobic, I'm just concerned about all of our collective health and safety.

I hope that my suggestion appals you just as much as your ideas have appalled me. This is what actually causes situations where people loose it and go postal, I have done nothing wrong but I'm being punished. No worries on my part, I love my wife and my family, and they will still be there for me, and love me long after I have had to surrender my firearms for something that I didn't do, just to give you that piece of mind that I and the society in which I live in is now safer. The fact that something that I enjoy is being forcefully taken out of my life is irrelevant, just a bit of personal pleasure.

Central database and psychological assessment's made by medical professionals are something that us gun owners have or are going to be subjected to in the near future to ensure your safety, there are no ends to the sacrifices (rights that are taken away from us), that we won't make to ensure your safety.

Stay safe.

Tony

Another problem case for the TT reading comprehension course. Do you know what a head is? In the majority of people (although not necessarily on this board), it contains an organ called the brain. Now, things that are registered on this organ are hard to delete. Or to leave at the office before you go home. But, they still might be secrets.

If someone is a "panicked passenger" on that bus, you better believe he won't be owning a gun.

Data from here (firearm homicide rate) and here (firearm posession). The first number is firearm homicide rate in deaths per 100K per year, second number is % gun ownership in the population per household. I didn't compile the whole table, just a few illuminating examples. I don't have the numbers for Israel but gun ownership is very high, probably higher than in the States. Gun ownership isn't the problem, otherwise it would correlate.

It's not about being a "panicked passenger".

Put it another way. If you're sitting on the bus, minding your own business and all of a sudden you hear a commotion and turn around to see someone standing in the aisle holding a gun that they're about to shoot, then how do you know whether they're the perpetrator or just another "good samaritan"?

EDIT: And knowing that they might accidentally get identified as the perpetrator, who in their right mind would get up and confront the situation in the full knowledge that someone else on the bus with a gun might misread it and shoot them?

Around 2,5 million legal gun owners sounds much better - don't exaggerate.

"In Deutschland gibt es rund 2,5 Millionen Sportschützen und Jäger, also Besitzer legaler Schusswaffen." Eight million guns and pistols are privately owned in Germany.

?Acht Millionen Gewehre und Pistolen sind in Deutschland in Privatbesitz."

http://www.spd-watch.de/2009/03/die-spd-un...s-geistes-kind/

Hazza, you seem to think that the only use of a gun is to fire it. A non-panicky person would think of pulling it out and threatening to fire much before actually doing so.

Wait until the Central register is completed. As all of those private security and Geld transporter companies are classified as private persons, and as such the weapons are centrally registered to the company's CEO and his employees all have to qualify for the Waffenschein (CCW).

I'm just some guy who fears that his sport will be taken away by peer pressure and media hype as was the case in the UK. I have a lot of contact with people with whom I served with in the past who were target shooters, and today they all regret not having done more at the time.

As to the bus scenario I just went and found Passenger beheaded on Canada bus (BBC News).

Tony

I strongly suspect you have made this up. The best figure I can find is between 2.3 and 2.5 million which comes from a pro gun forum, and even then some of the comments suggest these figures are over estimated.Again, incorrect. As the current law stands, the minimum age for a gun is 14. The minimum age for a real gun is 18. They are considering raising it to 18 for all guns.

I'm beginning to think you just like makin…[/quote]Your comparison is so completely ridiculous that I considered twice whether to respond at all. There is no way a HIV patient can go on a killing spree. The only way you could get infected by a person with HIV is to yourself be careless. Unfortunately, people have no such protection when it comes to nutcases with guns.

Right and what does the guy in the aisle (who's happens to not be a good samaritan, but is actually the bad guy) holding the gun do when he sees you stand up with a gun of your own and "threaten" him?

You argue like a 6 year old...

Yes - that's what we're talking about.

Genie seems to think the outcome would have been better if random passengers had concealed guns on them. I reckon that the first guy to stand up and wave his gun around would have been shot in all the confusion - perhaps even triggering a gun-fight between a bunch of people, all on the same side...

14 is for soft air guns, that shoot 6mm plastic balls, with less than 0,5 joules of energy not real gun's, also as a 14 year old you can shoot air rifles under supervision at clubs. I used to work in a gun shop in Munich selling them.

Sorry about my slip about the amount of legal gun owners, that I know to be inaccurate, once the central register is compiled and the results are released we will see. Prior to the introduction of licensing in the 70's people who had the money and wished to do so could buy firearms as they wished, with the introduction of the licensing, but no legal requirement to lock them in safes the owners went and registered them, got a "Waffenbesitzkarte", and have had them ever since. People inherit firearms and also get issued a WBK. They are not members of a club or association, and don't even go shooting or hunting, but they are in possession of a legally owned firearm, at this moment in time where they can't or don't want to buy a safe they are turning them in to the authorities or giving them to gun shops, just to get them off their Waffenbesitzkarten hands.

We will see just how many there are.

As to the bus, that was a justified use of deadly force.

Tony

Eh? The only person who died was the bloke who was beheaded. The perpetrator's in a psychiatric institution...

Imagine if that nutcase on the bus who cut the guys head off with the knife had a gun? There wouldn't be just one person dead.

Yep...and as I keep saying. If there had been other passengers armed with guns on the bus, then there's also a chance more might have died...

I meant had one of the other passengers been armed, sorry for being cryptic.

Tony

I don't remember hearing about too many free-for-alls like this occurring - got any examples? You've mentioned the same scenario several times.

There were a number of church shootings like this.

When I go to church, yes I'm a white middle aged Christian, I go to pray and enjoy the sermon, and not to have to worry about some loon who isn't happy with life.

Tony

Once again, a normal, non-panicky person would not even fire his gun. I imagine the scenario this way - loony pulls knife and starts stabbing, good armed Samaritan pulls gun and shouts at the knife puller to "lay down the knife or I shoot". Other random good armed Samaritans hear the commotion, pull their guns, but hear that one person is asking another to lay down the knife, whilst seeing said person stabbing another person with said knife. So they know who's the loony and who's the Samaritan.

End of.

Again, Hazza, people who have no idea about the use of a firearm shouldn't get a license to carry one, I think you're giving us a great example why.

It's all hypothetical...luckily, most places in the world don't allow regular citizens to run around with concealed weapons, so it wouldn't normally happen.

But if it were allowed, then can you not imagine a scenario where a mentally deranged guy starts stabbing the guy sitting next to him. Random armed stranger sees what's happening and grabs his gun and stands up. Another random armed stranger sitting further away hears a commotion and turns around and doesn't see the guy getting stabbed - instead only sees a bloke brandishing a gun. So he starts shooting at the guy brandishing the gun. Still someone else who's also armed can see the stabbing and sees the first guy getting shot at and wrongly assumes the deranged guy has an accomplice, so he starts shooting back.

Now, instead of 1 guy getting killed by a random psycho, a whole busload of passengers is caught in the cross-fire. Is the scenario that difficult to imagine?

Actually, toemag, what you posted isn't what Wheel meant. Wheel meant when a bunch of good Samaritans all open fire at one another because every one of them thinks all the others are crazy gunmen. What you posted is exactly an example of when a good Samaritan guns down a crazy gunman and besides the people that this gunman shot, nobody gets hurt.

This is where you're getting it wrong. A person trained in using a gun in public places knows not to start shooting just because he sees a person with a gun.

Within living memory [up until WWII or thereabouts] most countries allowed people to carry personal arms freely and I don't remember seeing reports of it happening then, either.

Unintended consequences.

Tony

Yes - in the ordered world of Genie, this is exactly what would happen. In the real world, people would be panicking (even if not the people with guns), people screaming, climbing over seats to escape. Over the noise, one guy saying (or even yelling) "put down the knife" gets drowned out by everything else going on. The WORST thing you can have in this scenario is a bunch of heavily armed people brandishing their weapons around.

Seriously - give it up. You're on a complete loser with this argument

Listen, I produced statistics, that were largely ignored. Statistics showing quite clearly that there is no correlation between firearm related homicides to possession of weapons. You, on the other hand, produced imaginary scenarios out of your thumb, scenarios for which you can't cite a single similar occurrence. You tell me who's the loser.

Right - how many family members get shot because they are mistaken for intruders?

More than actual intruders. And they are among the people entrusted with being allowed to own a weapon...

Don't pretend that everyone who's done a leisurely gun safety course is some kind of iron-man who won't panic.

Why don't you go ahead and answer that question. Go ahead, show us the numbers. I believe they're included in the above mentioned statistics.Who said anything about leisurely? Oh, right. You did.

Statistics that showed that the most gun deaths occur in the US - where ordinary citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons in parts of the country.

But yes, of course. You know best...Lucky for the rest of us, you don't actually have any power and the people who make the laws in Europe agree with me and not you. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it...idiot.

Oh and it all started with this post:Where you made no mention of training or just brandishing a weapon and just seemed to indicate that you are in favour of anyone (you wrote "a person" not "a highly trained person" or anything else to suggest it couldn't be just anyone) owning a gun and carrying it around the streets with him in case he gets mugged - and then presumably starting gun-battles in the middle of the street.

But sure - I'm the one who's wrong for pulling you up on it...

The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides. A lot of the homicides are related to the drug trade.

Fixed it for you. First one's free.

Yes, we all know how to misedit posts, but if you do it, it outs you as a boring, unfunny idiot

Slept through statistics class, didn't you? Correlation. Look it up.

Now, I'm not a big expert on international gun regulations, but I'm willing to bet that if someone comes up with a half decent way to quantify gun regulation and the efficiency of its enforcement, that would produce a nice correlation for these data. So if gun regulation is the most explanatory parameter, that's what should be addressed. Now, some would prefer more power to the state, a mild form of tyranny, where the possibility to own a gun is completely denied of all citizens. Some would prefer a more practical approach which considers the fact that guns are dangerous if held in the wrong hands, but might be useful if held in the right ones. Very mature. I suppose I should insult your mother now. Now go read my statistics again, linger a while on the numbers for Switzerland (it's a country in Europe), and stick it wherever you want.

Hey dimwit...

In case you haven't noticed, I haven't been arguing about gun ownership at all. I've merely been arguing against the merits of allowing ordinary people to carry concealed firearms. Your statistics are completely irrelevant to this argument as they don't address this at all.

Learn to read.

Ok, Back on Topic.. Seeing as Paintball, air soft and laser tag guns DON'T KILL PEOPLE...What about cap guns, those are still avail. and not banned.

I believe this was discussed and deemed ridiculous by a large consensus.

Then the thread can be closed..

Banned, even.

Cap guns have severly restricted for a long time.

That explains the bright red/yellow ends and the piddly little pop they make, the caps have been 'elfNsafety'd to be much quieter.

Nice dodge. Now, about those mass shootouts - oh wait, they were a product of your imagination, weren't they?

But they are still sold. If people want to practice storming a Bldg. they can use those.. Exactly the same idea/reasoning the idiots in

Berlin used to ban Airsoft/Paintball/Laser tag guns. And if you want something that actually shoots things there's always rubber band guns

Water Guns and the various Nerf Guns.

Luckily they're only a product of my imagination, because almost all countries don't allow their ordinary citizens to walk the streets with concealed weapons...

You can't say that my hypothetical scenario couldn't happen if normal people did carry concealed weapons in an emergency situation.

Some countries do allow that. Was there any occurrence of the sort in those countries?

Are you saying that my hypothetical scenario is unrealistic and could never happen?Maybe we've just been lucky so far...

Aliens landing in the desert and abducting humans for research is also not unrealistic and could happen. I'm asking - did it? Should we deny people some freedoms because it might happen?

The problem with guns in the US is not that some people can have them, it's that anyone can have them. That's where regulation should intervene.

Are you actually that stupid, or just pretending to be?

What's more realistic though? Aliens landing in the desert or my hypothetical.

See - smart legislators don't wait for the tragedy before they implement the controls. That's why carrying a concealed weapon is illegal in almost all parts of the world...

EDIT: So the answer to your question is 'Yes' - we should (and in fact it is banned mostly) because it might happen...

I think your scenario is a bit unrealistic, but I would not say it can never happen.

There are only a few cases of a person stopping a crazy shooter in the US that I know of. The lady in the church that shot the guy (but she was a security guard and they say she may not have finished him). I would argue the deterrent could help keep these people in check. If they knew 1 in 20 were armed and they probably could not finish their crazy plans, they might snap back into reality. Or they may just change plans...

Here is one. Here is another. Here. Lots of other stories on google if you look. But not any that I see with your scenario (not saying it can't happen, but it appears rare).

Most gun owners in the US are respectful of laws and well-trained. There are some nuts, but there are always nuts.

A right postponed is a right denied.

Are you saying that private sales should be federally regulated?

I'm out.

I'm discussing something with an obvious idiot. Someone who thinks that a tragedy occuring because someone carrying a concealed weapon misreads a situation is just as likely to occur as aliens abducting us and carrying out experiments.

I'm not going to bother with you anymore...

Ooga booga! You stoopid! buubuuubuuu!

In the 170 years since the invention of the modern revolver, did your "realistic" scenario happen even once?

Crazy relative of mine in GA lives with her sister in a remote rural area, both 60+ years old.

She sees a strange truck on her property and goes to investigate, but simultaneously sees her nephew coming to visit.

He says: "I need to go get my pistol."

She says: "Got mine right here already." Classy lady.

She finds two ladies stealing stuff from her shed and she holds them at gunpoint until the cops come.

She also busted some meteor chasing scientists that were trespassing without permission. They got a few thousand $ fine rather than time, but she is feisty.

You just never know what you are going to find. Not everyone lives in densely packed safe German neighborhoods...

I disagree completely. Driving a car is also a dangerous thing that should only be done by people who are capable of it. Yet I don't think any reasonable person would think postponing that right (getting a license, doing a driving test) is denying it. I think stricter licensing of firearms is better in that sense.

And there we have the best demonstration of your maturity level.

Hazza, while most people aren't going to be interested in owning a gun, even in the US, we also need to avoid getting seduced by the idea that gun violence can be eliminated by simply banning private gun ownership since clearly criminals/deranged types who are the ones most likely to use guns to kill or wound others aren't going to be completely deterred by a law banning their possession. That doesn't mean allowing everyone who wants to own them to do so, but allowing legal ownership of some types of firearms may make sense in some cases in some societies. A society such as Japan which has a low crime rate wouldn't need to allow concealed weapons to be carried by permit holders, but it may be a different story for residents of New Orleans or Detroit.

According to TT Standards that makes them a Genius

Just trying to make you feel at home with statements of your own liking.

Just to make things clear, this is what my caveman reply was about:

Note how I used actual words and didn't just make baby sounds...

If we can't effectively do background checks for illegals for employment, how can we expect checks for gun purchases? (I think the illegal check is getting online, not sure, maybe just for some industries?).

Do "cooling off periods" really work? Is some yahoo really going to go down to Wal-mart, buy a pistol, and then go out and shoot his wife? Get a Wii and beat her at boxing.

You can't regulate the person-to-person trade at all (no paperwork/registration, no background checks, no cooling off) so what is the point of wanking all this time trying to regulate gun shops?

Or do we make personal sales illegal?

Do it just like you do with cars. Each gun has a registration number and a license. When you sell a gun, you have to sell it with its license and register the license to the new buyer with the authorities. If the buyer doesn't have a firearm permit then the authorities don't authorize the license transfer. Holding a gun without its license registered to your name will then be illegal, so it will be the buyer's responsibility.

Genie's solution is reasonable- there has to be some regulation and certainly law enforcement needs the tools and the legal framework to target illegal weapons even in places where some private firearms ownership makes sense. We need to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the deranged as much as is realistically possible.

Gatzke- google E-Verify for the employment verification database.

In Germany, you have to join a club be a member for a probationary period and pass a nation wide set test (Sachkundeprüfung), then once your probation period (in which you are expected to attend at least two range days a month, and you have to maintain a shooting diary which can be checked with the clubs own records), is over you apply to the association with which your shooting club is affiliated with, and ask for them to confirm that you require pistol/revolver/rifle etc in whatever calibre for certain disciplines. Once you have that confirmation documentation from the association you apply at your local Rathaus/LRA/KVR for a Waffenbesitzkarte, they will then run background checks on you, and you will or won't be given a Waffenbesitzkarte depending on the out come of the back ground check. Once you have that you can go and buy whatever it is that you were granted permission for.

When you have your Waffenbesitzkarte, and have bought the weapon that you need to train with, you have to continue to maintain your shooting diary, and attend at least one range day a month, the shooting club has to inform the Local licensing authority if you stop attending training sessions. The result of which is that they send you a letter asking you which shooting club are you using as your original club has not seen you for a while, depending on your reply, work, illness etc they could withdraw your WBK and you have to surrender the firearms.

Then there are other ways to loose the coveted WBK, DUI is one of them, but any behaviour that may be interpreted as irrational will cause problems.

I get the impression that although you are all on the level you don't have a clue what us Target shooters/hunters have to go through to be able to own firearms, at the moment I probably have about ?30,000 invested in Hunting and target shooting weapons and the bit's and bat's that you require like safes ammunition etc etc.

Tony

Criminals can get full automatic weapons in minutes whereby us legal owners are made to jump through hoops and things, for less.

Tony

Err... umm.... you don't need any license or test or permission to buy a car in good working condition. Don't even have to know how to drive. Can't say the same for guns. So I'd rather NOT do it like you do with cars. You just need the purchase price to get a car in your garage. I don't want the same rules to apply to pistols and rifles.

You have to jump through hoops because of past abuses by criminals. Better to jump through hoops than for your firearms ownership to be banned and therefore criminalized.

Bipa, there's no need to nitpick- Genie's point about licensing was clear.

Actually you're right, I never owned a car outside of Israel, but that's how it works there and that was what I meant. Also helps preventing the sale of stolen merchandise.

@ Conquistador:

You wouldn't say that if you were to open my garage and see one of these babies sitting there. 'Course I think I need to make my garage a bit bigger first.

(attached image)

Criminals also steal and murder while law-abiding citizens need to work, and deal with people we don't like or who are preventing us from getting what we want.

I'm not saying my solution would end all criminal firearm use, I'm just saying it will be that much harder for them to get illegal weapons, and that much easier for law enforcement to bust illegal weapon sales this way.

An ugly, outdated and low firepower machine that sits way to high above the ground and has no reactive armor. Next!

Of course, Bipa, you'd also have to have some idea how to operate an operative Panzer and actually have one before I'd start to worry!

Yep... you're right. After all, we're living in Germany so I should go with something more like this one to make sure I can get TUV easily. Does it come with automatic transmission?

(attached image)

Now, that's more like it!

Transmission? Who cares. It should come with a driver.

a lame and weak attempt by elected officials who do not really care, have interest into seeking REAL or EFFECTIVE measures...

typical German political response: put a band-aid on a gauging wound and hope it goes away

wonder why they dont take any measures to combat the rampant alcoholism and tobacco addiction and/or any other public safety health concerns... oh, that's right... lobby is too strong and might challenge their pocket money.

What? Do you think that the legislature here would take away their own vices? That would be empty pockets and no legs to stand on.

ha ha ha... good point...

I have yet to hear about some criminal getting an automatic weapon with the intention of shooting up a school or going on some other random shooting spree. Those school shootings were committed with legally owned weapons, owned by those "law abiding" citizens we are supposed to entrust with weapons.

One glaring issue here:

Automobile registration is fairly easy to enforce because the police can simply run your plates whenever they feel like it. Pretty much any time you have looked up and seen a cop car behind you, he has already run your plates, so the odds of the authorities checking up on your within a given year are pretty high.

With guns, however, we almost never discover that an illegal weapon even EXISTS until it is used to attack someone (and, present issue excluded, the overwhelming and vast majority of weapons thus misused are illegal). This would be a bit like all cars being invisible to the cops until someone is run over. If you come up with a car registration system that is difficult or infringes on people's rights (like putting GPS trackers in cars, say) then you have created even MORE problems without really addressing the one you intended to.

The reason gun violence is lower here in Germany than the USA is probably more linked to cultural differences than to gun laws. For instance, in the States we are a lot less used to the Fed living in our back pockets and checking up on us than they are here. Back in the USA we find that kind of conduct by the government oppressive and would rather accept a higher level of gun violence as a tradeoff. Here they are ok with being bagged, tagged, monitored, recorded, watched, and analyzed by the government to a much greater degree. Just a cultural difference, as I said.

RFID all weapons. Built into the actual barrel or chamber so it can't be removed without makeing the weapon useless.

Cops can carry readers and see if you have a weapon on you at anytime.

Licencing and the rest can follow from there. Only works for legal guns of course same as any other measure.

Yah, which is my point. I now have to jump through hoops, to exercise my legal rights. Some of the hoops are on fire. Meanwhile, criminals are still able to abuse firearms with no impediment.

Any course of action to fix the problem of gun violence has to be assessed on the basis of two facts:

1. Does it impede the law-abiding?

2. Does it impedee the non-law-abiding?

If the answers are "Yes" and "No" respectively then we need to abandon the approach.

Didn´t Eliot Spitzer lose his job because some "law enforcement" unit was snooping around in his accounts and then checked up if he was paying some woman for sex? People getting monitored and watched here more than in the US? Just give me a break.

Governments puts in reverse gear re paintball: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/...,624796,00.html

I am not sure that any of us could say for sure either way which country "monitors" its citizens more, but surely it takes more than one example to make any sort of definitive conclusion either way? You wouldn't want someone to generalize about Germany's privacy protections by simply citing the Deutsche Bahn, Lidl, etc. scandals, would you? Of course not.

I think everyone should carry guns. Then you'd get all the kids trying to look all cool, and holding their guns all sideway fashion, so their aim would be crap, and I'd always win in gun fights, and could change my name to "hurrah for me" for being so great.

I agree on both your points. As to the licensing issues you mention - something is better than nothing. And yes, my intention was to impede the law abiding, as some of them are not to be trusted with a handgun until they undergo proper training. Plus I think your example with the invisible car is too exaggerated - a criminal might be caught, say, dealing drugs, get a body search (go rubber gloves!) and an illegal gun he's carrying be discovered that way.

About the cultural differences - sure, that's definitely a major cause, but then - what are you gonna do about it?What a joke. I once took a direct hit in the face from a rampant shooter 2 meters away (I'm not a regular player). It hurt my lip a bit. I guess w…[/quote]

I've never heard anybody say after a shooting massacre that the perpetrator was an avid paintballer...not ever. And I reckon the press would jump all over it if someone was.

So how are they making this connection?

Its to be seen to be doing something...

IMNHO I can't see the reason for people owning smallbore weapons here. It is easy to say that criminals don't have licenced weapons but that doesn't seem to be what is killing people by and large, its legally held weapons got hold of one way or another by nutjobs.

The counter argument is that a loony will just as likely use a car or a breadknife but niether is as efficient as a pistol and neither is purpose built.

Any one fancy a day at the range's?

Tony

You might possibly be right (stats?), but I think this is something that education can solve. Educate firearm holders not to be negligent about their guns. Enforce your education program by licensing.

Would this education include things like how not to loose the plot and execute your family/colleagues/schoolmates/random strangers...

Sorry there is no reason to own a pistol in Germany or any other civilised country they are designed purely for killing, they have no other function so unless you are in a profession that explicitly requires that you may have to use deadly force you don't need one.

- Link

Civilized? There are places in the US, UK, France, Belgium, Greece and many more I wouldn't dream of entering without proper a proper way to defend myself. You might tell me to stay out, maybe even stay at home, I'd tell you to stay out of my pocket.

How often have you had to use force of any description to defend yourself...?

And even when if you did was it lethal force and was it because someone was threatening your life or because it was just overgrown male tough guy bullshit after a few drinks ...

I never lived in any of those places.

Joe, Genie has a point there. Not every place has crime rates as low as Munich does. Most people don't need or want to own a firearm for protection, but in some places it may be necessary.

So why would you need a gun? Even assuming a gun would help you in a situation (I am very doubtful in would incidently)

IMHO, the primary benefit is the deterrent effect- a potential attacker is much less likely to attack someone who may be armed and able to defend themselves using the firearm. Much easier to pick on someone who you can be reasonably sure isn't armed.

To be able to deploy and use a firearm effectively requires:

- quite a lot of specialist training

- physical space IE your attacker must be at least several metres away.

- a great deal of ability to work under extreme pressure, loss of fine motor skills/coordination is a feature of adrenalin dump

The whole self defence argument in western europe and in any civilised country is extremely thin even before the practicalities are considered.

Joe, perhaps you noticed that Genie mentioned some places that aren't in Western Europe and neither he nor I are from Europe. There should be a strong training requirement as part of licensing, absolutely. I come from a place where there was a lot of gun crime when I was growing up, and I can tell you for a fact that there was a deterrent effect if a potential attacker thought a person might be armed. Furthermore, if you think someone might be armed, you won't get too close to them anyway so as not to be construed as threatening (nor are several meters distance required to use a pistol).

EDIT- I would also say that licensing could take one's age into account as well as any criminal record (or lack thereof) and successful completion of tough training.

Ban is not happenning:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/...,624796,00.html

But we are talking about western Europe. You can do what you like elsewhere my family don't live there:)

The deterrence argument is an extension of the argument some people make that if every state had the A Bomb the world would be safer because we all be deterred... Probably not.

Agreed criminals are by and large rational actors they will by and large select victims carefuly (IE the ones they don't believe are armed) but effectively all that means for society is that the weakest and most vulnerable are going to be the victims most often.

Also I would add professional criminals are bad guys 100% of the time they know how to neutralise peoples defences: how to get close and how to engage, intimidate, these situations are not like fights.

EDIT - Simple experiment get one of your mates to take a lipstick or marker pen get him to run at you from 7 metres while you try and perform a simple task such as drawing a concealed pistol, cocking it and using it. I agree you don't need space but for an average person this is quite difficult to do under pressure. This is a side discussion really, it also gets into weapon retention etc (ensuring that your attacker doesn't simply take your weapon and use it on you). I suppose my point is that a lot of these things are easy to in class but execution under pressure is very difficult.

Western Europe has relatively low levels of gun crime, but it doesn't hurt to consider the situation in other parts of the world.

The weakest and most vulnerable, unfortunately, are always the most likely victims; however, it isn't reasonable to suggest that an 80 year old woman carry a firearm for protection.

You seem to acknowledge the validity of the deterrence argument one sentence after you pan it. Tough licensing requirements suggest that not everyone will be permitted to legally own a firearm, and it certainly cannot be said that a locality with high levels of gun crime is safer when other than police only criminals have firearms. The ideal solution would be for police to keep all firearms out of the hands of criminals, but that never happens in these localities with high levels of gun crime, and the second-best solution in such cases appears to be to allow limited private firearm ownership.

EDIT: sure, there is always the possibility of having one's weapon taken away from them. However, we see deterrence work on a daily basis in the US, so it's the best option in some cases- at least you aren't totally defenseless against the criminal, most of whom aren't going to take big chances. There are never 100% guarantees; however, giving no chance of deterrence or self-defense is asking for trouble.

I also wouldn't automatically liken any scenario of an attempted mugging (for example) where both criminal and prey have firearms to Mutually Assured Destruction as a wider range of potential outcomes are possible, as the guys shot by Bernard Goetz in 1984 would tell you.

You might also find this incident of interest:

Appalachian School of Law shooting (Wikipedia)

If privately-owned firearms had been available during the Virginia Tech massacre in April 2007, some innocent lives may have been saved.

My view of the deterrence argument is that it really is a zero sum game in its perfect form (nearest we've seen was the US/Soviet cold war) however in wider practice this is not the case because the prerequisites are not there for it to work in the way they were in the cold war. Critically reducing it down to the level of individuals what you don't have is a gaurenteed lethal retaliation ('first strike survivability' for the MAD & NUTS freaks).

I would also add that the moment it comes to use deterrence has failed. Deterrence relies on rationality and a shared understanding of what the outcomes will be. Criminals will use various tactics though to get under your gaurd, they are also unfortunately generally quite good at it as they have far more practice at being bad than people like you or me.

I would never underestimate a determined, skilled criminal; however, you are taking away an opportunity to move the odds in a favorable direction for the mark of the criminal and away from the criminal. There are cases where only the would-be attacker is wounded, whereas you seem to assume that the only likely outcome is for only the intended victim to lose in a zero-sum scenario. Maybe this is because you have resigned yourself to it since your would-be victim is unarmed.

I have seen deterrence and self-defense work, Joe, and while it's not perfect, it is the best we can hope for in these situations, and it is not realistic to assume only advantages for the criminal in such confrontations. I'd at least give a potential victim a fighting chance rather than completely condemning them to the not-so-tender mercies of their would-be-attackers.

My view is that there is no basis for privately held smallbore weapons in western europe, their presence is more of a risk than a benefit.

Just a question how do you know deterrence worked?

Its easy to be macho about these things but the consequences of using force can be very high. Frankly if its a choice between doing someone serious harm and handing over a few EUROs then these days I will probably hand over the cash a bruised ego is better than the alternatives. If someone I think someone wants to do me physical harm then I will leave, if that isn't a choice that is another matter. All that said though in the end prevention is better than cure I avoid places that I think are dangerous, and if someone for no obvious reason gets too close to me I will tell them to take a step back.

One notices that deterrence works when you live in places that have high levels of gun crime but there is significant gun ownership and people who mind their own business and could potentially have a firearm (or are known to) are left alone. Does it work completely? No, there are some instances where a particuarly determined attacker will do so regardless of the consequences, but that isn't your garden-variety mugging of a stranger we are talking about here- we are typically talking about revenge (crime of passion) or drug-related slayings (revenge/turf war/huge financial incentives).

I would agree with you that Western Europe doesn't have a need for its residents to carry firearms, but that is because there are low levels of gun crimes here, which isn't the case in, say, US cities.

Avoiding bad places, which is another form of deterrence, BTW, is an excellent strategy and should be the first one employed, but it is not foolproof either. When it comes to muggings, of course there are many situations where it doesn't make sense to do anything other than meekly comply, or to attempt to do anything else. One has to apply judgement.

The low level of gun crime in Western Europe suggests that other weapons are used in muggings here, thus other strategies than private firearms ownership should be employed with regards to dealing with a potential mugging in Western Europe.

Its easy to talk in the abstract about these things. A person who really wants to do you harm will give you no chance to respond in this case gun ownership makes no difference unless you have precognition, in fact the availability of weapons might make it easier for them to realise their ambition.

The deterrence you claim to have seen might just be perception, that is to say you saw what you wanted to see. It also sounds like in fact the people with the most reason to carry a gun are actually criminals so they can defend their criminal interests against other criminals.

AFAIK in most countries people are usually murdered by their family in fact statistically speaking (correct me if I am wrong) so self defence unless its against your wife/husband is a thin argument.

Also if a mugger has a knife that is just as lethal as a pistol, so should we all go out and buy flickknives or better still a pistol since it is in absolute terms a more efficient tool for killing a force multiplier?

You seem to be a bit confused- no one is claiming that carrying a concealed firearm means that there is nothing than can happen to you. Availability of weapons is a givem, unfortunately, so unless you have a proven method for eliminating all of them from the streets of US cities you need to accept that they are there and that many criminals have and used them, necessitating a response from the law-abiding to defend themselves. The deterrence factor to which I refer is well known to anyone who lived in similar urban neighborhoods in the US, and I can tell you for a fact that not everyone who carries a firearm in such places is a criminal- a very unfounded assumption on your part, Joe. These are people who are the toughest targets, and thus are usually left alone when it comes to random attacks because it is known or assumed that they are packing and it doesn't make sense to try to attack them just for the heck of it. Since we are concerned about assailants randomly attacking strangers, even if the people armed with firearms are criminals, it is still very relevant to this discussion if they aren't being mugged and otherwise randomly attacked because of the fact they are carrying a firearm deters potential attackers- our law-abiding types would receive the same benefit of having a credible deterret factor (and a chance to use the weapon in self-defense).Straw man argument here. Most people are murdered by someone who knows them; however, someone who knows you has many different forms of access to you than a criminal who doesn't know you, and concealed weapons permits aren't there to allow you to defend yourself against family members, who can anyhow do things like poison you.

Allowing people to carry firearms to deter and/or defend against assailants who try to attack them in public doesn't have anything to do with a family member or friend who may want to kill you (they may be deterred by other things or not deterred at all). You are making it blatantly obvious that your opposition to private firearms ownership is absolute, regardless of circumstances. Also, no one is claiming that all gun crime can be prevented by private firearms ownership for the purposes of deterrence/defense, yet you act as if it doesn't, it's completely useless. That's not what it's designed to do, although we can certainly imagine some scenarios where it could. Again, another straw man argument. Knives aren't as lethal as firearms, and a person armed with a knife is less likely to want to kill you with it than someone with a gun in a similar situation, in part because it's harder to kill someone with a knife.

EDIT- here's a comment on the likelihood a murderer knows their victim:

So you can't back it up, it is just a gut feeling. I am not deriding it entirely but I suspect it is something that relies on everyone knowing who is who and crucially understanding the correct social rules. You are allowing gun ownership on the basis that it deters when we also know that guns appear to turn domestic disputes into lethal encounters if statistics are to be believed. So here is the crux of the argument how many muggers get shot in the process of their 'work' per year in relation to the numbers of people who get shot as a result of domestic disputes? In other words what is the cost benefit to society? If I have a rock and you have no rock I have a huge combat advantage all other things being equal.

It is debatable, (for an average person probably it is more difficult) however a knife wound to any depth is fatal as is a slash wound to a major artery without imediate medical attention its only easier with a gun in the sense that proximity is not required (and arguably the will to kill). You can inflict 3-4 stab/slash wounds in a second, it is also much simpler to use ( assuming its not a folding knife, especially important under pressure). For someone to rob you or do most of the things criminals want to do they require proximity.

EDIT - Also how do you figure they are less likely to want to kill??

My interest is western EU cos that is where I live and that is the environment my kid is growing up in.

I think we should force everyone to carry paintguns at all times. Maybe even two or three with various colours. Then we could colour code any irritating folk we meet during the day and warn everyone else.

Orange: bad customer service

Blue: very slow office worker

Yellow: increased chance of beleidigung

Red: real criminal with danger of physical injury

@Bipa At last some sense!

Can we use combinations, for example red and yellow for Furious U-Bahn Grannies?

It would make 3 strikes and your out a lot easier for the cops to administer.

You just don't understand because it is a milieu that is unfamiliar to you. In general, if you grow up in a particular milieu you will understand the social rules and have some idea how to survive within that milieu. Perhaps you just cannot understand that US inner cities are quite a bit different than Munich. First, you will have to admit that there are other potential weapons in a domestic dispute than firearms, e.g., knives or fists. Second, you have to rule out any firearm used in a domestic dispute which was acquired illegally or is owned illegally because of the licensing system Genie proposed. Since you have proposed that those licensed for private ownership may use the firearms in domestic disputes, to what extent does this occur or to what extent can you reasonably say that this occurs? How does this compare with murders committed as a part of the drug trade, for example?

Again, you demand perfection when that simply isn't realistic.

The cost benefit to society may be tough to measure because much of it is the crimes which never occur because they are deterred. Of course, the deterrence can also be comprised of tough sentencing laws or something other than the firearm ownership. Also, how can a cost benefit be measured unless you tell me how many people die of gun violence in domestic disputes under a strict licensing system? Let's rephrase that a bit- if I have a firearm and you have no firearm thus I have a huge combat advantage over you all other things being equal. …[/quote]It does consistently show that your focus is pretty narrow. I think my views on this matter as it pertains to ordinary citizens in Western Europe were made clear above.

I have to say that I find Joe's proposed deterrent against these criminals he has built up to Herculean proportions seems to be a bit lacking:Good luck with that strategy for dealing with criminals.

EDIT: this may be of interest as regards murders as a result of domestic disputes:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htmBy 2005, gun and non-gun murders by intimates were almost equal. And, again, we don't know how many of the guns were not owned legally or would not be owned legally under a strict licensing regime.

You don't know me I don't know you we can all claim this that and the other experience.

I don't discount your view on this but I think you are imposing order on something that in fact has little order. The fact that you admit yourself that 'deterrence doesn't always work' and people get shot makes the whole thing a little suspect. Maybe the deterrence you are talking about is in fact little different to the ghostdance most of the time, that didn't always work either. I don't demand perfection, people will always be killing other people it is in our nature (though relative to other animals we are quite peaceful believe it or not) ...

However leaving tools that make the job easier lying round is hardly sensible. I don't see that whether a weapon is legally or illegally held is actually that relevant.

Bad guys killing other bad guys is that really a something you care about... (you'd better get to the Dr Conqi you don't sound well delirious liberalism) The cost benefit is easy compare murder rates in comparable societies (western liberal democracies). Only applies if the mugger knows the victim is armed otherwise it is down to whether the victim is able to:

- understand what is happening fast enough, sounds simple, might be not be think of Ted Bundy's strategy. Intelligent people are often quite arrogant in this sense

- understand the situation demands lethal force

- deploy the weapon

- aim and fire it

This also comes back to the deterrence argument. I have shown you why I think it is a dubious argument, your view give everyone a gun (& training) and there will be less crime.I am focussed on Western Europe because that is where i live...

I have hardly built up muggers into herculean proportions but I am wise enough to admit they probably know something about street robbery because its their job.

That said I also know something about it which is why if someone I don't like the look of trys to engage me I will take the appropriate steps the first of which is to be assertive in telling them to keep their distance....

Surely you jest. The US is a very different society than, say, Norway, and your ridiculously simplistic benchmark is completely inadequate to the task…[/quote]Actually, I'd rather that they didn't kill each other and instead became productive, law-abiding members of society. I don't know why you assume that perfect information is necessary- reasonable doubt is usually enough to deter. While it's not possible to always mount a sucessful self-defense, at least you have a chance in some circumstances. I don't think criminals want to take a chance in getting blown to bits.

Again, you show that you expect perfection. Apparently you didn't understand- I made clear that this wasn't appropriate for everyone in every locality. Since you don't want anyone to own a firearm for anything other than professional reasons it's clear that you will find any argument to the contrary to be dubious. I don't see how that is going to stop anyone who is determined to attack you, and may in fact encourage other violence- I've seen people attacked for saying something like that (or even something more innocuous) whereas if they had kept their mouth shut there probably would not have been one (not that such an attack would ever be justified). Maybe it's different where you come from.

I have my position on private ownership of guns especially pistols I would ban them tomorrow if I ran Germany. I have made my arguments I have nothing further to add. You are confusing mugging with stand up fighting the two are very different, and no I would not be aggressive needlessly with people especially after alcohol comes into play.

I wasn't aware that Lidl or Deutsche Bahn are part of law enforcement now. I guess that their behaviour might be considered quite legitimate in the US though. Anyway, if you believe this report then Germany doesn't seem to be as bad as the US (yet): http://www.itpro.co.uk/610859/uk-ranks-fif...tronic-policing

Just a quick note.

We have had some people voice the sentiment that some gun control is better than none; so basically, even if it is inefficient and a burden to law-abiding citizens, it's "better than nothing."

I have also seen the idea expressed that a gun is not a good idea because you have to draw it, aim it, etc. so it will not help you in a conflict.

To apply your logic: It's better than nothing. Were I or my family in danger, I would rather have a weapon with which I am relatively inexperienced than no weapon at all.

You may point out that this is a shitty argument, and it is. So is the idea that bad gun control laws are "good" because they are "better than nothing."

Just wanted to put that out there.

Relying on a weapon with which you are relatively inexperienced can end up being worse than no weapon at all.

I bought a new pistol last week and took it to the range at the weekend, the first 50 rounds through it were great, the next 100 made a hole that you could cover with your thumb, if I knew how to post pictures on this forum I'd post a picture of the target.

Tony

Not bad for a first time with a pistol.

Or was it perhaps not your first time with any handgun, but just with this particular make and model? In which case you didn't need any help with figuring out how to switch off the safety, which I've seen happen to relatively inexperienced people.

I have been shooting and hunting since I was a kid, always was a natural, the Army honed my skills that I now use putting holes in paper targets or game animals.

However it was my first time with that particular weapon, 150 rnds in one jagged hole measuring 3x5cm, three trigger mistakes cost me 3 fliers, one went +5cm and two were pulled down about 5mm and 10mm respectively, but they were in acceptable margins.

Tony

no... Elliot Spitzer made a name for himself by going after big corporate corruption... big powerful companies... Spitzer got caught with his pants down, not because of some ill-fated chance, but because he had crossed way too many people and made way too many political enemies.

When something like that happens to a larger than life, politically ambitious figure... look deeper and it's clear as day what really happened. Hint: big business or federal political levels are far more brutal than any mafia family... you wish you would have been wacked.

on the subject of being monitored: what is it you think you know? more like what you dont know... is it paranoia or just what you dont know? regardless of whatever you think you might hear, no average citizen of any country has the slightest clue as the tip of the iceberg that goes into national security and/or the extent at which everyone is monitored/investigated... most likely... like most: you dont even show up on the radar/grid... even if you wrote certain keywords online.

I just found this, and think we may as well ban alcohol too.

Tony