School Shooting in Germany

[REVENGE]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD96S2U6O2

17 year old walks in with a 9mm Beretta, kills 15 students, then himself.

The discussion is: Should students be able to carry concealed firearms on campus as a method of self defense (eg the Students for Concealed Carry group in the US)?

I'm thinking potential cons outweigh benefits, at the moment.

[Otherside]

im all good here in my country were all firearms are illegal and no1's ever been shot since 1790(k gibraltar is small but still..)

humans cant be trusted with guns in general if sum1 feels suicidal and in a shit mood they can do stuff like this. Im generally against guns

WTB tighter gun control

[Jazcash]

im all good here in my country were all firearms are illegal and no1's ever been shot since 1790(k gibraltar is small but still..)

humans cant be trusted with guns in general if sum1 feels suicidal and in a shit mood they can do stuff like this. Im generally against guns

WTB tighter gun control

If you give people guns, you should give everybody bullet proof vests.

[Felix the Cat]

Yes.

I'm not familiar with German handgun laws, so using the American ones, legal concealed carry is irrelevant to the actual crime in question; at 17 one is not eligible for a concealed carry license (or to buy a handgun) in most of the US.

To answer the question, I believe that one does not give up one's inherent right to self-defense (including collective self-defense - defending a third party from harm, i.e. using a weapon to stop someone else from being mugged) when one walks onto a college campus. I believe that legally carrying a weapon is a part of the right to self-defense; hence it's not a difficult question for me, but rather one whose answer is obvious.

[Otherside]

your right to self defence is great. But carrying a weapon that is primarily used for offense and can cause death/injuries to multiple people before the person can be stopped = STUPID.

Even though im against carrying knives . If someone carried a knife you wouldn't see them kill 15 people before being stopped a knife is a close quarters weapon were as escaping from a gun is harder.

[Jazcash]

Yes.

I'm not familiar with German handgun laws, so using the American ones, legal concealed carry is irrelevant to the actual crime in question; at 17 one is not eligible for a concealed carry license (or to buy a handgun) in most of the US.

To answer the question, I believe that one does not give up one's inherent right to self-defense (including collective self-defense - defending a third party from harm, i.e. using a weapon to stop someone else from being mugged) when one walks onto a college campus. I believe that legally carrying a weapon is a part of the right to self-defense; hence it's not a difficult question for me, but rather one whose answer is obvious.

If not a single weapon was sold at all anywhere in the world, over 9000 lives would of been saved.

[Peet]

Ehhh...a firearm is not a defensive item. As for the usual retort to that statement, "the threat of a firearm is a good defensive measure" and its variants...then why carry it loaded?

[smoth]

every one should have a krogoth to defend against krogoths...

also 15 kills with a hand gun, I am suck ass with pistols!

[1v0ry_k1ng]

to find out if the whole gun thing for self defence works,
compare the number of school shootings in england, where nobody has guns, to the number in america, where any crackpot can jip one from his dads office and mow down half his class because he hates his life
america: over 9000
england: less than 9000

moral: guns suck

[smoth]

Yes because it is that simple. LOOK A DEBATE THAT NEVER GOES ANYWHERE!

[Felix the Cat]

to find out if the whole gun thing for self defence works,
compare the number of school shootings in england, where nobody has guns, to the number in america, where any crackpot can jip one from his dads office and mow down half his class because he hates his life
america: over 9000
england: less than 9000

moral: guns suck

Your argument makes no sense, because we're talking about guns owned by law-abiding people for self-defense, guns aren't allowed inside schools, ergo law-abiding people will not be carrying guns in schools for self-defense.

Here's one to consider. In a state where gun ownership is illegal, what percentage of civilians who have guns are criminals?

Are you comfortable with this percentage of gun owners having, by definition, less than noble intentions?

[Noruas]

Welcome to America, no offense, this is a lame deal in comparison to the world, at least americans dont post everything that happens on the news.

[Jazcash]

Welcome to Earth.

[smoth]

real life sucks, I hate no-respawn servers.

[rattle]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD96S2U6O2

he shot the link as well

[Acidd_UK]

I don't agree in any way with a 'right' to bear arms being interpreted as a right to carry concealed firearms. Yes, getting shot sucks. But if you want to kill lots of people at your school, you can always make a bomb, or block the exits and burn the place etc etc.

Lots of people carrying guns leads to unnecessary escalation of conflits to the point where people get shot for stupid minor things. I would rather get mugged and the criminal gets away with my wallet, than to get into a gun standoff with said mugger that will almost certainly result in one or both of us being shot, probably fatally.

Allowing ordinary people to carry concealed firearms for 'self defence' simply isn't viable, in the same way as allowing people to carry any other offensive weapon (knives are the obvious one) isn't viable.

Here's one to consider. In a state where gun ownership is illegal, what percentage of civilians who have guns are criminals?

You would imagine it's around 100%. But so what? If there's a community of 1 million people, and maybe 100 armed criminals, then that's a better society (imho) then A population of 1 million people, 2,000 armed criminals and 10,000 armed 'good' civilians.

Here, in the UK, there is no need to carry a gun, because (barring a very few inner-city areas) you aren't going to get someone threatening you with a gun in the first place. I don't know how you can argue that everyone/most people having guns is better than noone/very few people having guns...

[Panda]

I don't know how you can argue that everyone/most people having guns is better than noone/very few people having guns...

They're great deer hunting, police officers aprehending very dangerous people, going to the shooting range for fun, and shotgun weddings, YEEHAW!

[REVENGE]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD96S2U6O2

he shot the link as well

Yeah, that was odd. Thanks rattle.

I don't know how you can argue that everyone/most people having guns is better than noone/very few people having guns...

They're great deer hunting, police officers aprehending very dangerous people, going to the shooting range for fun, and shotgun weddings, YEEHAW!

[Forboding Angel]

Lots of people carrying guns leads to unnecessary escalation of conflits to the point where people get shot for stupid minor things.

Actually, that is completely untrue. The facts are quite the opposite. If both people have guns then that is generally the last thing that would come to mind. No one likes to get shot, criminal or not. I live in the midwest (kansas city), and south of here in very rural areas, it's not uncommon for everyone you meet to be packing a pistol. Having a weapon on your person is a great responsibility, and people treat it as such.

You're going to be a lot less likely to commit a crime using a weapon if the 5 people that are going to walk past are all armed similarly.

As a result, in places such as the above described, shooting deaths are extremely rare.

In kansas city where I live, last year there were 197 murders, out of a population of several million. Interestingly enough, 197 murders were enough to put KC at #1 in the country for murder rates.

You guys over on that side of the pond have some weird twisted view that what comes out of hollywood is how things actually are in the US. Quite the opposite.

Scenario: You are a would be crook wanting to hold up the gas station. Everyone has a pistol concealed carry. How good of an idea is it to rob said establishment?

Scenario2: You plan a breakin to rob a house, yet the owner has weapons. How good of a plan is this?

Gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Last time I checked, criminals weren't standing in line to register their handguns. Ever heard of the term "Throw-away"? Doesn't take much imagination to understand what the term relates to.

Furthermore, late last year I got into guns and shooting. I go down to the range and shoot a colt .45 a few times a month (32 bucks for 100 rounds... not exactly a cheap hobby by any means). My guess is that you guys over there haven't ever been through a gun safety course (which btw is required here, simply to fire one at a range), or even ever fired a handgun. If you had ever been through one you would realize that your respect for a handgun and using it safely goes up a good 50 notches if you had ever held one.

Even if guns were banned completely, I wouldn't have any trouble getting one. Anyone who doesn't already understand this is fooling themselves.

Do I personally own a handgun? Nope. Do I plan to get one? Eventually, but the inexpensive .45's don't shoot very straight once they get a little worn so I would want a good one, which means it would be a hefty investment. Do I plan to conceal/carry? Nope, I don't have much wish for having the responsibility of lugging the damn thing around with me. In my car would be ok, but wearing it personally? Not gonna happen.

Before arguing, take a firearm safety course and your eyes will be opened. I'm talking about a course where you actually fire the weapons, not some thing you found on the internet.

Also, might as well dispell another hollywood myth while I'm at it. Very few people (and even then only people who practice regularly) can actually hit anywhere near their target firing a gun one handed (no .22's don't count here... trying to shoot up a place with a .22 is like walking into a hornets nest with a BB gun) Hollywood makes it seem easy, I assure you it's not. Another fact is that even two handed, most people's accuracy goes to shit at over 15 - 20 yards with a 9mm -> .40 pistol. Two handed, I myself can hit a bullseye at 30 with a .45, but it takes time to aim. If you try to rambo it up you won't hit shit. A man sized target at even as little as 15 yards can be tough to hit for most people.

[Forboding Angel]

Misread. Sorry Acid.