News German School Shooting

[Urwumpe]

A state where only the police have guns is a Police State.

That is wrong. The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

 

[Andy44]

Interesting today: The police found dozens of really violent horror movies (which the guy should legally not own) in his room

Curious. Private videos are censored for all in Germany, or just because of his age? What makes the movies illegal?

To Usonian: the reason the pro-self-defense crowd is the way we are is because these sorts of incidents always bring out the calls for complete bans. It's just one side gearing up for what they know the other side is going to bring to the argument.

I'm with Ghostrider about adults being left alone to be adults, else freedom cannot last.

 

[Ark]

I don't think it can drive anyone to do things like this. Otherwise schools would be full of shooters.

They're full of people who decide not to do it.

Nature vs nurture. IMO these things happen when a crappy environment meets a mental predisposition.

I'd also like to know what constitutes an illegal horror movie in Germany...

 

[Tommy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
A state where only the police have guns is a Police State.

That is wrong. The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The first leads inevitably to the second. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Individual gun ownership provides a check and balance that helps prevent the kind of rigid and repressive control you mention.It's easier for a government to run roughshod over a population whose only recourse is to whine about it, and can't take any real action to prevent it. Even if that action is futile in individual cases, it's still effective in the long run.

Gun ownership isn't the only thing that prevents oppression, Ghandi's peaceful revolution prevailed without the use of guns, even against an armed oppressor, but gun ownership still has a very real deterrent factor.

 

[Linguofreak]

That is wrong. The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

I will say that a state where only the police have guns *tends toward* a police state. Then again, I'm not in any big rush to go out and buy myself a gun.

 

[Master of Blades]

I will say that a state where only the police have guns *tends toward* a police state. Then again, I'm not in any big rush to go out and buy myself a gun.

Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree, in Sweden, only cops and the military (legally) have access to heavy fire arms, it is possible to obtain gun licenses for civilians, but the process is long and difficult (you have to be "clean", ie no arrests or similar for the past 5 years, and you'll have to be a member of a gun club). And I really don't see Sweden as a police state... -.-

 

[tblaxland]

I will say that a state where only the police have guns *tends toward* a police state. Then again, I'm not in any big rush to go out and buy myself a gun.

I agree with Master of Blades. Separation of powers is the key to stopping that tendancy. Works in Oz, too.

 

[Urwumpe]

The first leads inevitably to the second. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That's why we invented separation of powers.

Individual gun ownership provides a check and balance that helps prevent the kind of rigid and repressive control you mention.

Let me play devils advocate. Individual gun ownership provides means to the weak to play cop, judge and executioner in the same instant. A firearm allows them to play God.

What is rigid and repressive control? When a police man stops you for speeding on a morning when you can absolutely not need this? When you listen to your favorite music loud at night and a two cops stand in front of your door, both ready to draw their own weapons in case you are drunk and violent?

Any application of force and police violence (psychological as much as physical) is repressive. You will never have a police man say "We don't want to bother you, but could you please leave your car, if you don't mind?". He has the right and duty to command you around and limit your freedom, because of the same laws, which also restrict him from taking more from your freedom as needed for doing his job.

Important is the separation of powers. If a single person can make his own laws, decide himself how to implement his laws, and has also the right to decide if somebody is guilty of violating the laws, could in theory be a enlightened tyrant. But usually just a tyrant.

 

[Tommy]

Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree, in Sweden, only cops and the military (legally) have access to heavy fire arms, it is possible to obtain gun licenses for civilians, but the process is long and difficult (you have to be "clean", ie no arrests or similar for the past 5 years, and you'll have to be a member of a gun club). And I really don't see Sweden as a police state... -.-

As you state yourself, civilians can own guns. Sure, there are some common sense limitations. In the US, convicted felons aren't allowed to possess firearms, the average citizen isn't allowed to own fully automatics (machine guns) and there is a "waiting period" for handguns in most states. The point isn't to allow every nutcase to have a gun, the fact that they MAY have a gun provides the deterent.

What is rigid and repressive control?

Being arrested or detained for disagreeing with the government. There have been people in this country that have been "detained" incommunicado for simply speaking out against the Bush administration, even though no threats were made, and no laws broken. I get pulled over fairly often with no reason given (I have long hair). It would be worse if the public wasn't allowed to have guns.

Also, violent crime in general, and in particular gun crime, is lower in places that allow concealed carry. Even in the most "gun crazy" places, like parts of Texas, a permit is required, proficiency must be demonstrated to get the permit, and there are other limitations (such as "No guns in bars")

Prohibition always fails, whether its booze or guns. Far better to require proof of proficiency, a background check, and the ability for the licensing agency to check mental health records, than to force people who want protection to violate the law and have no chance to practice with their firearms. And before you say that protecting the public is the Police's job, they aren't always around. It doesn't do me any good when they show up after the fact, even if they catch my killer I'm still dead.

I'd also like to point out that I have been in the military and worked for several years as a policeman. Legal, regulated gun ownership is far better than an ineffective ban. Bans don't do much to reduce gun crime, the vast majority of gun crime is performed with illegally aquired guns. No law, even a nationwide ban, can close the lid to Pandora's box.

I used to live in a poor neigborhood in Rockford Il, and can state categorically that being able pull a gun has saved my life at least twice, without ever having to use it. When I reported the break-ins to 911 (called while the crackheads were coming in the door) both times it was over a half hour before police responded. Without my gun, I would be just another statistic. I feel that my genuine need to defend myself outweighs your idealistic desire to live in a gun free society. That society does not exist.

The only way to combat violent gun crime is to create a culture that reduces people's desire to perform violence. There will always be a few nutjobs that go on spree's even if they have to use a blunt object.

 

[Andy44]

As you state yourself, civilians can own guns. Sure, there are some common sense limitations. In the US, convicted felons aren't allowed to possess firearms, the average citizen isn't allowed to own fully automatics (machine guns) and there is a "waiting period" for handguns in most states. The point isn't to allow every nutcase to have a gun, the fact that they MAY have a gun provides the deterent.

Actually, many states don't have any law prohibiting machine guns, all it takes is to pay for the federal tax stamp, which also registers the ownership of the arm with the BATFE. The reason more Americans don't own machine guns is because they are super expensive, due to a law signed by Ronald Reagan which banned the sale to civilians of any full auto manufactured after 1986. Thus the supply of machine guns is restricted to aging, historical arms and spend most of their time in the safes of wealthy collectors. Also, if you have ever blown several boxes of rifle ammo in a long day at the range, imagine blowing the same ammo in a few minutes. It gets real expensive real fast.

Also, violent crime in general, and in particular gun crime, is lower in places that allow concealed carry. Even in the most "gun crazy" places, like parts of Texas, a permit is required, proficiency must be demonstrated to get the permit, and there are other limitations (such as "No guns in bars")

Meh. Texas has an overblown reputation as "gun crazy". I submit that Virginia, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and other states are more gun crazy than Texas, especially when you look at the laws regarding carry permits and restrictions. In Vermont, as long as you can legally own a firearm (per federal law), there is no legal restriction against carrying your pistol concealed or openly without a permit of ANY kind, thanks to the state supreme court's ruling years ago. That's as it should be. Texas is nowhere near pro-gun enough for me; those Texans need to get with the program and walk the walk!

Prohibition always fails, whether its booze or guns. Far better to require proof of proficiency, a background check, and the ability for the licensing agency to check mental health records, than to force people who want protection to violate the law and have no chance to practice with their firearms. And before you say that protecting the public is the Police's job, they aren't always around. It doesn't do me any good when they show up after the fact, even if they catch my killer I'm still dead.

There is an actual ruling by the US Supreme Court (Warren v. District of Columbia) that states the police have no legal obligation to protect any member of the public. That is why the police never get sued or sent to jail for standing around outside a building when a guy like Cho is inside shooting disarmed people left and right.

When confronted with a violent criminal, there are only two people invited to that dance. You and him. For at least several minutes, you are on your own, and you have a right to defend yourself using the best equipment you can afford. Waiting for the cops to show up is a good way to wind up wounded, raped, or dead.

I feel that my genuine need to defend myself outweighs your idealistic desire to live in a gun free society. That society does not exist.

Exactly. My basic freedoms are not subject to the irrational fears of other people. I'm not willing to die to make someone else feel the illusion of safety.

 

[Omhra]

In Utah 50 bucks gets you a concealed permit. Very good thing.
and what part of "Shall not infringe" is hard to understand...
If you are not a criminal you should have the choice to own a gun and remain lawful... and if you are unlawful no law will prevent you from having one. Right?

 

[MattNW]

Good point and I'd like to take it one step further: freedom EQUALS responsabiliy. The free man is willing - wanting - to answer for his actions. He knows there are consequences for his acts, for which he has to pay in person. The slave does not, his master answers for him.

I'm against tight gun laws for the same reasons I'm against tight dog laws - althogh I've had bad experience with dog owners more than once - and for the same reasons I don't want to see movies, games or books being banned or the Internet regulated into TV 2.0. We must learn to live as adults, taking responsability for our action because only a good dose of self-discipline can bring real security. As long as we're treated as overgrown kids who must be watched over for their own safety, we'll only be as safe as the watchmen will allow us to be.

And then, who watches the watchmen? And don't start to blather about gluinos, Dr Manhattan...

:goodposting:


Not too long ago I read that in the UK where they have some pretty strict gun control laws, they are now having a rash of- guess what? Knife violence (mostly kitchen knives). Now people are talking about controlling knives. One suggestion was to prohibit all knives with a point and only allow blunt point knives to be sold and possessed. What's next axes, pry bars, scissors. When does it end?

You can't legislate away stupidity. Same goes for insanity. Laws aren't the answer. Responsibility is the answer and that goes for everyone surrounding the kids in crisis. That kid didn't get that way overnight. Where was the support he needed when he needed it? Same thing for the Columbine killers.

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

Oh I wouldn't be surprised if it became illegal to have a crowbar under the car seat soon. It's a great weapon of war in my opinion! Battles/Wars are won by great soldiers, Not weapons. Gun laws accomplish nothing with that equation factoring in crime as well.

 

[Lunar_Lander]

Just a little bit of info which I found on the List of Shooting Sprees somebody posted the link to on the first page of this thread:

It appears that there already had been a quite big shooting spree in the area in 1913, the killer was a teacher called Ernst August Wagner. He began by shooting his familiy, then proceeding to Mühlhausen, where he set several bulidings on fire. Next he shot at the fleeing people, killing 12 and injuring 8. He was then arrested and during the trial he stated, that his original plan would have been to burn down the castle at Ludwigsburg, kill his sister's family and finally commit suicide in the bed of Prince Carl Eugen.

He then was the first criminal in the history of Baden-Württemberg to not be given a death penalty, but instead he was declared criminally incapable due to his paranoia. He was then sent to the psychiatry which actually is the one in Winnenden.

When I read that, I was shocked. I have friends down there in Ludwigsburg and was shocked especially of the fact that he had been in the same psychiatry as Tim had been. Of course, this does not have to be a reason for the incident now, but there is some coincidence there (like also the fact that he planned to move on to Ludwigsburg, and Tim taking a car driver hostage to get away)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_August_Wagner

 

[Urwumpe]

Curious. Private videos are censored for all in Germany, or just because of his age? What makes the movies illegal?

Not absolutely illegal - but no longer allowed to be traded freely (Only under the counter not for people below 18, etc). You would already commit a crime, if you would buy one such movie and give it to somebody below 18.

The attributes for such media products to be banned for minors depend on the type of media, but also on the political and social atmosphere of the time. Many music CDs, which had been banned in the 80s, had been unbanned now.

I'm with Ghostrider about adults being left alone to be adults, else freedom cannot last.

Freedom is just another word, for nothing left to loose.

 

[Moonwalker]

Freedom actually is not what it seems to be in some people minds. Freedom does not mean to have the right to do anything at any time and also not to have endlessly freedom of decision. Freedom ends especially in case you start to disturb others. That is why, for example, publicly smoking near by nonsmoker has nothing to do with freedom. Driving a cabriolet while turning up the music so that people and children can hear it within hundreds of meters at 03:00 a.m also has nothing to do with freedom. It is almost a kind of violence and I always tend to call those people thoughtless as*h*l*s. Consideration is something a part of our society has unlearned and became brainless instead.