Egoshooters

[Gerben42]

Yesterday in a boring town near Stuttgart, a young man ended the life of 15 innocent people and then his own. On the same day, something similar happened in the US. These kind of things make me thoroughly sick.

 

Any ideas on how to prevent this?

 

In the German case, the father was member of a hunting club and had weapons in his home. The kid stole one of them and used it. My proposal would be there is no need for anyone to keep a gun at home.

 

1. Gun registration with the person owning the gun having a lot of responsibility.

 

2. A driver's licence for guns, with a course and a test. Otherwise, no membership.

 

People who need a gun for their work will have to keep it in their workplace, or if they are private, collect it before work in some central point. If that's also not possible, they must accept to have a safe to put it in and full responsibility of the weapon.

 

I know this is all utopic for the USA where the NRA has lots of power, but in Europe we can still do this.

[Aberlour10]

I know this is all utopic for the USA where the NRA has lots of power, but in Europe we can still do this.

There are about 1 500 000 associated members in shooting clubs in Germany, this lobby has a lot of political power too. So, after yesterday's tragedy many german top politicans denied immediately need of stronger gun control.

 

Robert

[Gerben42]

There are about 1 500 000 associated members in shooting clubs in Germany, this lobby has a lot of political power too.

 

That is a huge number of people, but surely the other 80 million can do something against it! I would never want to own a gun myself...

 

So, after yesterday's tragedy many german top politicans denied immediately need of stronger gun control.

 

If only the voters would punish them. After all, it's an election year.

[Codo]

As horrible as this story was, I would hate any stronger laws.

 

I think we have to life with it that every now and then there are very ill persons who try to die with as many victims as possible.

 

When you are from a poor muslim state you often try to kill americans/ ISraelis/Other theists. When you life here, you have no "real enemy", so you kill the bad bad neightboors who did not gift you the love and understanding you deserved.

 

In my opinion, there is no acceabtable way to stop these sick killers. It would cost all of us too much freedom for a too small target.

 

These crazy guys always get much press, but by far the most school kids still die in accidents and on cancer and heart disease.

But they don't make it into the news.

 

Drunken drivers kill thousands each year, so we maybe shall stop alcohol for people under 40 anf give the driving licence at the age of 30. This would truely safe much more lifes then any law against weapons.

 

I agree that the laws for owning weapons must be harder, but we cannot do a lot against these tragedies.

[blackshoe]

I would never want to own a gun myself...

So what? It's not about what you want for yourself — or it shouldn't be.

 

Yes, it's tragic that these things happened. Yes, the father of the kid in Stuttgart had a responsibility to secure his guns against theft. No, it's not the fault of the guns — or of the fact they were available. If somebody wants to kill a bunch of people, including himself, there are many ways to do that without guns — and if guns aren't available, they'll find another way.

 

For every case of "OMG! Look what those terrible guns did now!" you can find, if you care to look, at least one case of some little old lady who drove off a burglar with her deceased husband's old pistol.

 

Check out Gary Kleck's research and books, or L. Neil Shulman's Stopping Power or The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy by David Kopel. Granted these address things from the American rather than the European viewpoint, they still give valuable insights into the question of gun control in general.

[helene_t]

As usual I agree with Gerben.

 

Not that I think it's the way to reduce the number of murders, suicides and people getting shot by accident significantly, but rare cases such as this one seem easily preventable, and IMHO at zero cost.

[Gerben42]

For every case of "OMG! Look what those terrible guns did now!" you can find, if you care to look, at least one case of some little old lady who drove off a burglar with her deceased husband's old pistol.

 

I agree with "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but I really don't see the necessity for people to have guns and ammo at home. In the military, a loaded gun is treated carefully, yet it is apparently possible that private persons simply buy them and keep them unguarded in their homes.

 

Well you cannot run into a school with a butcher's knife and manage to kill 16 people like this. As macabre as it sounds, at least 14 people more would still be alive if this kid wouldn't have had access to such dangerous weapons.

 

Drunken drivers kill thousands each year, so we maybe shall stop alcohol for people under 40 anf give the driving licence at the age of 30. This would truely safe much more lifes then any law against weapons.

 

The rules on drunk driving are too lax too. You get caught and you lose your licence for 1-3 months? I would prefer that you lose their driver's licence for 5 years to really be forced to arrange your life to not having a car, and then if the judge thinks you are fit, you can do the driver's test again.

 

I agree that the laws for owning weapons must be harder, but we cannot do a lot against these tragedies.

 

Unfortunately there is no way to stop the really determined, but weapons that are designed for killing people are not fit for the public.

 

If you go hunting deer, you need a shotgun with a long loading time. After all, deer don't try to disarm you when you have missed. If you are in some shooting club, don't keep your gun at home.

 

And if I would want to buy a gun in Germany, all that is checked is if I don't have a criminal record. I don't have to take lessons or a test.

 

Is taking a test if you are fit to use the weapon you want to use giving up freedom? I don't think so.

 

Is a requirement to handle dangerous weapons carefully giving up freedom? I don't think so. These kinds of rules make abuse harder, but still allow you to exercise your right to join a shooting club or go hunting.

[blackshoe]

This is one of those controversial subjects on which it is difficult, if not impossible, to convince people to change their views. Sooner or later, the discussion devolves into name calling or worse. I've expressed my opinion, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

I will say, though, that "the military" ain't perfect wrt to weapon safety, nor are they immune to stupid regulations.

[kenberg]

Perhaps it is a matter of safety versus a way of life. I fished with my parents as far back as I can remember, took a boat powered by an outboard out on the lake by myself when I was 8 or so, and began carrying a loaded shotgun hunting with my father when I was about 12. I was taught well about safety and responsibility with guns.

 

I no longer hunt and I seldom fish but it is not in my general nature to tell others what they should or shouldn't do. I do highly favor requiring licensing of guns, demanding training in their use, and holding people responsible for any consequences of gun usage.

 

A Minnesota story for whatever amusement it provides: My father and a close friend were really into ice fishing, a sport that I never took to. In Minnesota you can drive on the lakes in the winter, but every year some cars go through the ice. In late winter one year Len and my father were discussing going out on a lake. My father noted that a car had gone through the ice a day or so back. We'll go to the other end" Len said. They went. And got back.

[PassedOut]

Guns were very much a part of my life as a boy. My dad gave me a .22 rifle when I was 11, along with intense and memorable lessons in how to use it safely. One of my friends and I used to walk out to his grandma's farm a few miles from town and practice our target shooting there. A few years later an unpleasant experience turned me off hunting, and I've never hunted as an adult.

 

My wife fears guns, and I agreed that we would not have any in our home while our sons were growing up. Now that they've become young, responsible adults, I've spent time with them at a shooting range, which we've all enjoyed (including, finally, my wife).

 

I agree that guns should be licensed, and then only after successful training.

 

Growing up in Wisconsin, I too had experiences with driving on ice. In fact, a winter ice road connects Bayfield, Wisconsin with La Pointe, Wisconsin, a small town on Madeline Island in Lake Superior. One year a family tried to move a house across to the island on the ice road, and it broke through the ice. By spring, it was kindling and the truck had to be pulled from the lakebed.

 

The only scary experience I had personally was with my dad driving over the ice of an inland lake to check on our summer cottage, which was on a road not plowed in the winter. We started to break through, but my dad gunned it and we made it to shore. He had to pay to plow the road so we could get back home.

[Aberlour10]

If only the voters would punish them. After all, it's an election year.

I am afraid, it will not happen.

 

The experts mean Germany has already one of the most restrictived gun control laws in Europe., it has been aggravated twice since school massacre in Erfurt (2002). Is it restrictive enough? In my opinion only particulary, but if all these existing regulations (safe-keeping of guns ) would be abbided by the father of this guy, yesterdays tragedy could not happen.

 

Robert

[Phil]

Yesterday in a boring town near Stuttgart, a young man ended the life of 15 innocent people and then his own. On the same day, something similar happened in the US. These kind of things make me thoroughly sick.

 

Any ideas on how to prevent this?

 

In the German case, the father was member of a hunting club and had weapons in his home. The kid stole one of them and used it. My proposal would be there is no need for anyone to keep a gun at home.

 

1. Gun registration with the person owning the gun having a lot of responsibility.

 

2. A driver's licence for guns, with a course and a test. Otherwise, no membership.

 

People who need a gun for their work will have to keep it in their workplace, or if they are private, collect it before work in some central point. If that's also not possible, they must accept to have a safe to put it in and full responsibility of the weapon.

 

I know this is all utopic for the USA where the NRA has lots of power, but in Europe we can still do this.

As Gerben knows, Germany already requires to have a license for handguns.

 

By the way, I had to reread Gerben's post, because it sounded like he was advocating regulation of 'weapons', when in fact it was a gun (8mm) used in the shooting.

 

Depending on your perspective on the issue, this news item might be seen as a claim for more gun control. Or it may be viewed as a failure of gun control laws.

[mikeh]

I suppose that it will surprise no-one to read that I strongly favour very stringent gun control. The facile statement that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is as stupid as it is catchy.

 

People with guns kill more easily and more indiscriminately than people without guns.

 

In British Columbia, we are currently witnessing a gang war, with scores of shootings and dozens of dead, including a young mother shot while driving her husband's car with their 4 year old in the back seat. Now, there is some reason to suspect that her husband is a gang member and maybe the shooter thought he was the driver.. but so what? There have been completely innocent bystanders shot and killed as well.. because the shooters use automatic weapons (presumed to be smuggled from the US) and don't worry too much about aiming.

 

Arm these thugs with no more than a knife, and most of them would think twice about attacking someone up close and personal... someone who would no doubt have a knife of his own... but even if a fight or assault ensued... the damage is likey to be contained, and apprehension and conviction of the assailant is more probable because killing someone with a knife, as I understand matters, is more likely to leave forensic evidence than shooting someone from a distance of several yards.

 

And I have yet to read of a drive-by knifing :P

 

I fully accept that there are millions of hunters who would never think of using their weapon on another human, and I don't have much problem with properly licensed and trained hunters having their weapons, even at home if adequately secured.

 

But I have never heard of a hunter going after his quarry with a handgun or with an AK-47 or a mac-10.

 

I can think of no legitimate reason for the average citizen to have such weapons.

 

Ok.. someone asks.. what about the home invader, or burglar or mugger?

 

I understand that the advice from police officers is almost universally: give up your valuables... do not fight back. Contrary to popular entertainment, muggers don't really want to kill their victims... they want to score some money or saleable items so they can get their next fix. Burglars want to get away... whether you confront them with a gun or a frying pan, they usually run away... and best of all, you don't confront them at all... you hear them, you dial 911 (in NA).

 

In the meantime, the odds that your child or grandchild will shoot himself or his cousin with your gun drop to zero. The odds that your gun will be stolen and used by criminals drops to zero. The odds that you will be tempted to be a (dead) hero drop significantly. The odds that your depressed kid will take your gun and kill his classmates drops.

 

And imposing very stiff penalties for simple possession of a prohibited gun will make the job of police officers, gas station attendants, liquor store owners, and bank tellers a little safer.

 

There are so many weapons in the world that maybe I am being too idealistic, but giving up for that reason is not a defensible strategy.

[luke warm]

In British Columbia, we are currently witnessing a gang war, with scores of shootings and dozens of dead~~

imagine for a second that in BC there was a total ban on guns, except for police and military... do you think these gang members would still own guns? if someone is already a criminal, do you think a law banning guns will make them less likely to add another criminal act (owning an illegal weapon) to their sheet?

 

but the issue runs deeper than that, at least in america

[barmar]

but the issue runs deeper than that, at least in america

I think I've heard that the National Rifle Association is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. It took a lot of work just to get what minimal gun control laws we already have. The Brady Bill, requiring background checks for people trying to buy guns were prompted by the shooting of Reagan's press secretary during an assassination attempt on the president, and there are still loopholes in the law (e.g. sales at gun shows are not regulated).

[Lobowolf]

Ok.. someone asks.. what about the home invader, or burglar or mugger?

 

I understand that the advice from police officers is almost universally: give up your valuables... do not fight back. Contrary to popular entertainment, muggers don't really want to kill their victims... they want to score some money or saleable items so they can get their next fix. Burglars want to get away... whether you confront them with a gun or a frying pan, they usually run away... and best of all, you don't confront them at all... you hear them, you dial 911 (in NA).

 

 

And imposing very stiff penalties for simple possession of a prohibited gun will make the job of police officers, gas station attendants, liquor store owners, and bank tellers a little safer.

 

Yes, in response to the suggestion that there is "no legitimate reason" to have such weapons, I would certainly suggest defense against the home invasion robbery/burglary. Handing over the valuables and relying on the mercy of someone who didn't mind breaking into my house is in my view a less than ideal situation. I notice that while you mentioned junkies who maybe want to get 50 bucks for their next fix, you left rapists off of the list of people who might break into the house. As a class, they generally aren't averse to hurting their victims.

 

I don't have kids, so we have a reduced likelihood of mishaps. We also keep the one gun in the house locked up when we entertain, even if children won't be present. I do agree that people with guns kill more easily than people without them. Trained, responsible people with guns also defend themselves more effectively than people without them, also.

 

For all of the "hand over the goods and don't confront the bad guys" advice that police officers offer, they don't check their weapons at work and go home unarmed, the way they might if the gun was merely a work tool that they'd be better off without -- they keep them at home, and you can bet they don't ignore then and call 911 if they hear someone breaking into the house.

 

As I mentioned, because people who aren't deterred by laws against rape, robbery, murder, etc. won't generally be deterred by laws against possession, it's not clear to me that stiff penalties against possession will make the jobs of gas station attendants, bank tellers, and liquor store owners easier, but it is pretty clear to me that they'd make the jobs of burglars, armed robbers, and rapists easier.

 

The fact that some people will use guns irresponsibly, and yes, people will die as a result, is not a compelling reason to criminalize mere possession by responsible owners (though I am nowhere near a 100% "anything goes" mentality). Similarly, I don't find the fact that tens of thousands of people will die in the USA this year in drunk driving accidents to be a reason to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

Just with respect to a couple of the arguments presented here. First, with the safety of the liquor store owner -- I find it hard to believe that someone who isn't deterred by armed robbery laws is going to be deterred by a "possession of handgun" law. I suspect it'd be more rare than a drive-by knifing. And if you'd intend to design one so strong that he WOULD be deterred by it, then why not simply apply whatever penalties you have in mind to the people who use the guns to commit crimes? With respect to criminal usage, there's no reason that any deterrent possession law could not limited to criminal usage.

 

The criminals who care about whether or not their victims get hurt generally burglarize unoccupied residences. They don't risk the confrontation at the outset. It's not a coincidence that in England, where residents are unarmed, the percentage of "hot" burglaries (occupied dwelling) is significantly higher. If you lived in a border state of the U.S., and broke into houses for a living, would you work in State A, where residents frequently armed, or State B, with ultra-strict gun control laws and almost totally unarmed residents? My home has been burglarized when I was not in the house. If someone went so far as to break into while my girlfriend and I were home, I wouldn't consider waiting for a 911 unit "best of all." I'd be glad my girlfriend has a Beretta.

 

I do believe that the arguments about heat of passion crimes, child suicides, etc. are more compelling. With respect to premeditated crime, the "criminalize possession" argument has a fatal weakness -- it conceives that the laws would deter people who aren't already deterred by the laws prohibiting murder, armed robbery, etc. Ultimately, the effect is to disarm the law-abiding citizen. If I were in the organized (or even disorganized) crime trade, I'd certainly make campaign contributions to pass that one.

[Lobowolf]

Yup, people die because some people use guns irresponsibly and illegally. It's still overinclusive to me to criminalize the responsible gun owners. Tens of thousands of people will die this year in the USA in drunk driving accidents. A similar argument could be made that against such a backdrop, there's "no legitimate reason" anyone needs to drink alcohol, and legislate accordingly. It's not an argument I'd make, but in kind, I don't think it's a different argument. In fact, it's probably a BETTER argument, as defensive gun use has saved lives in specific instances -- certainly a better justification than can be made for protecting the right to buy beer.

 

I didn't realize that good chunk of my previous post had been cut off (probably just as well). Just to bring a couple of other things into play, though --

 

The police may advise you to just hand over the good and not confront the bad guys, but at the end of the shift, they don't store their guns in the locker. They bring them home. And they don't leave them put away and call 911 if they hear someone breaking in. They know perfectly well that trained, responsible people are safer with guns than without them.

 

Also, mention was made of the junkie, who maybe wants $50 to get his next fix and be on his way. I notice that among people who might break into the house, we forgot about the rapist -- one class of criminal who doesn't seem to mind harming his victim. Not all crimes are property acquisition crimes.

 

Because I don't see possession laws deterring people who don't balk at breaking laws against armed robbery, rape, and burglary, I'm not sure that strong possession laws would make the lives of gas station attendants, liquor store owners, and bank tellers safer. I'm pretty sure they'd make the lives of burglars and armed robbers safer, though.

[helene_t]

I think if alcohol was invented today, or if there had never been a tradition for drinking alcohol except within certain subcultures associated with crime, alcoholic beverages would be illegal in most countries, and, except for libertarians like our DrTodd, few would have issues with the ban. Think of some new synthetic drug, introduced today, which had a similar impact on health and behavior as has alcohol. Surely it would be classified among the most illegal drugs.

 

One could ask "why ban guns and allow alcohol, surely alcohol has a much worse danger/utility ratio than guns?". Or one could ask "why ban marijuana and allow guns, surely guns have a much worse danger/utility ratio than marijuana?"

 

You can't ban alcohol because it is an integral part of the lifestyle of lobbyists and voters. I suppose the same can be said about guns in the U.S.

 

Ultimately, the effect is to disarm the law-abiding citizen.

This may be true in the U.S. where there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation so no matter what future laws say it will be easy for criminals to get guns. It may even be true in countries like Canada where weapons are easily smuggled in from neighbor countries with less restrictive laws.

[Lobowolf]

I think if alcohol was invented today, or if there had never been a tradition for drinking alcohol except within certain subcultures associated with crime, alcoholic beverages would be illegal in most countries, and, except for libertarians like our DrTodd, few would have issues with the ban. Think of some new synthetic drug, introduced today, which had a similar impact on health and behavior as has alcohol. Surely it would be classified among the most illegal drugs.

 

One could ask "why ban guns and allow alcohol, surely alcohol has a much worse danger/utility ratio than guns?". Or one could ask "why ban marijuana and allow guns, surely guns have a much worse danger/utility ratio than marijuana?"

 

You can't ban alcohol because it is an integral part of the lifestyle of lobbyists and voters. I suppose the same can be said about guns in the U.S.

I think that's part of it, as is the geography of the U.S. vis a vis borders and coastlines. It's easier to keep guns out of some countries than others.

[mike777]

Guns are just one issue, bottom line this is about government doing much much more to reduce risk in our life. Europe and Canada is indeed way ahead of the US. I note France is about to outlaw underage drinking.

 

While European governments are way ahead of the USA in trying to reduce risk in their citizens lives, California is forced to release 58,000 crooks due to overcrowding. Every other state is forced to release crooks due to overcrowding in prisons. Many Americans do not even bother to report property crimes to the police. About 50% of all rapes are never reported, more when you consider that rapes and sexual assults in prison are just ignored.

 

It will be interesting to see if Germany or for that matter Europe bans all guns in the home.

[mikeh]

In British Columbia, we are currently witnessing a gang war, with scores of shootings and dozens of dead~~

imagine for a second that in BC there was a total ban on guns, except for police and military... do you think these gang members would still own guns? if someone is already a criminal, do you think a law banning guns will make them less likely to add another criminal act (owning an illegal weapon) to their sheet?

 

but the issue runs deeper than that, at least in america

It depends.

 

We know that the war on drugs has enabled criminals to prosper without (it appears) doing much to reduce illicit drug use. We know that prohibition in the US didn't end alcohol consumption.

 

Yet analogies between consumption of banned substances and use of banned firearms are, in my view, arguably flawed. Few amongst us yearn to have a gun in the same manner as we may want a drink or a high. Guns are not inherently addictive, nor does their use (consumption) generally give pleasure, to the non-psychopathic amongst us. Even the thugs who use them in criminal activities often have them primarily as threats or as safeguards against competitors who are themselves armed. We can deduce this in part from the fact that gangs rarely get into shootouts with police or civilians... most victims of gang violence are themselves gang members.

 

The decision to consume crack or heroin is often driven by physiological addiction, or for non addicts by impulse.

 

The decision to use a firearm is also, in many cases, driven by impulse.

 

But the decision to acquire a firearm or to have it in one's car is more of a deliberate choice. And that is where deterrence comes into play.

 

A gang member, armed with a gun, who feels he has been 'disrespected' may well pull his weapon and attack the person who he perceives has dissed him, on impluse. But his decision to go to the club with the weapon, or to get the weapon in the first place, was likely more deliberate.

 

If this is true, then it seems to me that a VERY draconian policy, strictly enforced, to the effect that the carrying of a handgun WILL result in very severe penalties, would greatly impact the chances of the gang member carrying a weapon as a matter of course would be greatly reduced. I am generally against severe penal sanctions for most crimes.. I think that the approach used in the US, in many cases, is barbaric and inhumane. But there are some crimes for which I think the usual punishments are woefully inadequate. There are crimes for which I believe deterrence will often work, and crimes where it doesn't.

 

Deterrence doesn't work to deter a crack addict buying crack, or stealing a car to pay for his habit. But crimes that require deliberative action are more susceptible to rational analysis... not that this is always the determinative factor, as advances in psychology tell us. To me, if one KNOWS that being found with a handgun or automatic weapon will ALWAYS bring home real punishment, there is an excellent chance that many of the potential users will think twice.

 

And the less common it becomes to carry a gun in public, the less need there will be to do so.

 

Will this eliminate all gun violence? Of course not.

 

But I grew up in a country and in a time in which the police were, generally, not equipped with firearms... only a select few were even allowed to use them, and I think that even they had to sign them out if they received a call required armed response.

 

When criminals don't have guns, police don't either... and when no-one has guns, no-one needs them.

[jdonn]

I think there is an inherent difference between substances, and items/objects/toys/things or however you want to classify guns. While alcohol certainly leads to lots of tragedies, you can only use it on yourself. If you are irresponsible and cause negative externalities then you should be punished and perhaps better controls should be implemented, but I don't think that is a reason for a ban. Guns, on the other hand, are specifically designed to be used on anything but yourself. They are (at least often) specifically designed to harm other humans. I don't view that the same way at all.

[mike777]

My concern is passing even more laws and regulations when we seem overwhelmed to enforce the ones we have will not help. I would hate to just pass more laws to just make us feel good.

 

As for ending prohibition in the USA it taught us that deaths and illness and crime rate went up not down from liquor. The Mafia did not disappear. Sort of like the argument to make Prostitution legal. In effect it just makes some prostitution legal and redistributes the demand by customers for the remaining illegal prostitution acts. The mob is still there and in business.

 

In any event this is all about the government trying to reduce the risk in our lives. What freedoms are we willing to trade off. It will be interesting to watch and learn from Canada and Europe.

[PassedOut]

We know that the war on drugs has enabled criminals to prosper without (it appears) doing much to reduce illicit drug use. We know that prohibition in the US didn't end alcohol consumption.

Yes, I agree with libertarians and (some) conservatives that the war on drugs is a counterproductive failure. Legalizing drugs won't solve all drug problems, of course, but it will eliminate the most serious ones.

[mike777]

We know that the war on drugs has enabled criminals to prosper without (it appears) doing much to reduce illicit drug use. We know that prohibition in the US didn't end alcohol consumption.

Yes, I agree with libertarians and (some) conservatives that the war on drugs is a counterproductive failure. Legalizing drugs won't solve all drug problems, of course, but it will eliminate the most serious ones.

I have heard this often but it seems just the opposite would happen. See what happened with Booze. Illegal Booze is a multi billion dollar business. The Mafia did not go away, in fact it grew and illness, crime and deaths from booze skyrocketed.

 

I assume if drugs are legal then, demand will soar, supply will soar, many new drugs will be invented to meet the demand. I assume that death and illness from drug use will soar as it did for booze. DUI killings.... I assume the drug lords will still sell and make billions from:

1) selling at lower than legal prices

2) selling whatever drugs/chemicals are still illegal

3) selling to minors....

4) mob involved in the Legal end of the bus.....

5) bribes for payoffs etc...

 

 

Of course we will encourage those involved in selling the stuff legally to cheat on taxes, sell off the books, etc etc......