What, you want me to prove a negative?

Yeah, what did I say?

I don't care what you buy or not Takeda because the facts speak for themselves. Of the 9 named massacres in the United States since 1990 only 3 have been in schools and one of them was at a University which only educates adults.

All nine of them were in Gun Free Zones though.

As an immediate hotfix measurement to adress the immediate threat, okay.

But the underlying problem is not adressed by this nor solved. There are reasons why the US are the lonely world champion in number of school shooting incidents. And these reasons should be adressed.

So this measurement just is what I just named it as: a hotfix, no solution and no lasting correction in itself.

The underlying problems are cultural, social, and mental.

Germany: after Fukushima the German government was so terribly afraid of the Japanese disaster travelling around the globe only to find and effect Germany, that it decided to leave nuclear power behind. Since then we have exploding costs in an increasingly chaotic effort to turn around our energy production, with our enegry minsiuter having nothing more tzo offer in substance than to advice Germans to wash their laundry not warmer than 40°C.

The American school shooting disatser has reached Germany as well. We already have one of the most punishing gun laws in the world, but as a consequence from what happened in America the Greens want to establish so high a penalty tax on possessing firearms for sports or hunting or (licensed) self protection that they say by that they want to make Germany a private firearms-free zone.

I know how my father stores his now single 9mm pistol he uses for sports. A heavy safe, certified by the police. Several documentations of that and the ammo storage being traded back and forth. Photographys of the safes inside and outside being registered with the police database. If they have the personnel: unannounced home controls (demanded by law). And a weapons license exam that is designed by its pedantic theoretical ammo and hunting details to just scare people away from it. A legal obligation to hold an organised membership in a sports shooting club and practice - to be documented by the president - at least 18 times a year plus obligation to participate in official tournaments - also to be documented pedantically. If you do not do tournament shooting, why would you need to shoot in between then? If you do not visit the range every 2-3 weeks minimum, why should even own a weapon?

Die spinnen die Deutschen... I am by far no campaigner for a general right to carry weapons, but what we have in Germany today just is hilarious, and totally hysteric.

They also want to ban since years all private home storage of legal firearms, and collect them in sport clubhouses. Nice, big, fat, filled weapon arsenals - very attractive targets for criminals breaking in by night and steal them, several dozens if not hundreds of weapons in one rush. But so far the thinking of these dumbheads propagating this does not reach.

Weapon fetishism like in the US does not lead to new grounds. Hystery like over here does not either. The truth is somewhere between the German and American extremes. But considering how deep the society is split in the US anyway, and political trenchwarfare, I have little optimism, even if Obama indeed would ban private ownerhsip of at least SARs (which should indeed have no aloowance in private households, like grenades, missiles launchers, landmines, machine guns, too)... Leave such weapons to the military and law enforcfement. Waging war, and anti-crime self-defence are not the same things.

I would agree with Tak here. Schools afford easy targets, least resistence and excellent shock value. Malls not so much.

And when this becomes the norm, we can talk about it. But the fact remains that every day gun violence is typically between two armed individuals. It doesn't seem that guns will stop that. So, again, you can rectite the NRA line as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true.

See my last post.

The Norm?

And BTW "everyday gun violence" does not indicate which shootings were in self defense and which ones were murder so using that statistic as a justification to take away peoples Constitutional rights is wrong.

And this is why I can't understand the gun culture. Here I am citing violence as a problem and saying that proliferation may not be the answer and all the sudden I'm trying to take your guns away. What was that about drama again?

I did see your post. To not be insensitive, it would seem school shooting is now the 'in' thing. All the kids are doing it.

If you support the AW ban then you are trying to take guns away from American citizens. If you support Gun Free zones you are trying to take guns away from American citizens.

If you want the support of those who believe in the 2nd Amendment then you had better start making suggestions that will actually address the problem instead of shredding the Bill of Rights which won't.

Apparently you do not watch the Baltimore news. No doubt what killings were murder....all of them!

Right, because a parent's right to have their child learn in a legally-required public school enviroment where the teacher is not carrying a gun is an infringement on your right to carry your gun wherever you go. You want to visit a school, leave your gun at home. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it grant you the right to carry your firearm in every and any setting and location? It gives you the right to own and to use. That right is still intact.

And I don't want to pee in anyone oats. School massacres get the media attention. The individual shooting at school do not. The first day of school in Baltimore a autistic student was shot in the back with a shotgun while he sat in the cafeteria.

Yeah, but we'll all be dead by this time tomorrow anyway. So, it's all academic.

Oh no, I was not implying that at all. By all means - I'll stab someone in the eye with a rusty fork if it means saving myself or a loved one. And I would be happy to have a gun in that kind of situation, as would anyone. The real question is how likely that situation is and whether being armed to the teeth is appropriate.

What I mean is that having a society where guns are the first line of defense is a bit problematic. And frankly, I fail to see how sending a child to a school where there is a one in a million chance of a madman going on a rampage is scarier than sending a child to a school full of people with guns, most of whom I do not know (and therefore cannot trust) personally. After all, the Fort Hood shooting was carried out by someone in a position of authority and trust, who had plenty of training with firearms. And in a world where you can't trust an Army major with a gun, how can you trust a teacher with a gun, alone in a class full of kids?

I know that this is inherently paranoid thinking, but it's a good illustration of the issue. I don't know, to me this just seems like opening a Pandora's box, and a very expensive one.

I'm not buying that story. :O:

:haha:

I hope you're wrong, because I just blew my kids' college fund on Rolos. Livin' for the now.

EDIT: I've got to give you credit, GR. Your thread took off like a rocket. Holy crap, seven pages in about an hour.

Talk to you tomorrow. :haha:

Question:

Serbia has the highest number of guns per capita after the US, why has there only been one rampage in Serbia in recent times (2007). Switzerland is number four on the list of guns per capita, most Swiss men have an assault rifle at home after completing their national service, yet when it comes to gun based homicides it has quite a low rate, and I can't recall a single school shooting there. Why is this?

Answer:

I have no idea, but it's something to think about.