And so it continues....

[kencameron]

Once again, I have no firm opinion as whether guys should be sold freely in the US. I do have firm opinion about Russia though: guns should not be traded freely here.

Agreed, from an Australian perspective (in relation both to what you said, and to what you probably meant  ). America's gun culture and gun laws and gun ownership are America's business. But from where I sit they look like one of its misfortunes rather than one of its glories.  I (with most of my fellow citizens) am happy that we have more restrictive laws, lower gun ownership and less gun-related death. In the end, all other things being equal, the more guns, the more misuse of guns - that particular expression of liberty seems to come at a price which we firmly don't want to pay. Of course our gun laws don't give us immunity, but I am glad that our terrorists and disgruntled crazies have a harder time getting hold of these particular tools and I am glad that our police seem less inclined to fear that they will be shot when they make a traffic stop. And if I wanted to hunt or target shoot again (I used to do both), I could, after filling in some forms and visiting my local police station. The restriction on my freedom strikes me as acceptable.

[jfirneno]

Slobodan,
 
Let's keep the distinction between gun crime and terrorism/acts-of-war , shall we ?

Again, does it matter? It was a mass shooting, the same subject we've been discussing in another thread. In the U.S. case, you (rhetorical) argued that it doesn't matter what was the real nature, whether guns were legal or illegal, crime, terrorism or suicide, all it mattered is... (lax) gun control. Now, in your case, all of a sudden (tight) gun control doesn't matter, but the "real nature" does!?

No it wasn't, it was AFAIK an act out of utter frustration. What you thought was the cause is in fact just another symptom, and that the problem lies much deeper within.

Guns are symptoms as well (providing a false sense of security), the root cause is deeper.

As for this thread, we do not know enough details yet, although I saw a video clip where (one of) the perpetrator(s) was heard discussing with presumably a spectator of the developing scene before it went horribly wrong. The spectator said in German, "you're an ass-hole, you can't go shooting people in a mall", and the perpetrator said, "I will draw my gun", and "I am a German, I haven't done anything, shut your trap". Or words to that effect. I'd have to see/hear it again to be more accurate.

Cheers,
Bart

Hey, just a reminder as to why I started the last post. Australia had just marked the anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre and twenty years with strong gun control and not a mass murder.

The original post.

"Dallas massacre

What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?

Depressed,

Yep, it was about gun control, it had nothing to do with terrorism. Don't conflate the two. America does a great job of controlling homeland terrorism. It also does a lousy job of stopping its citizens from shooting each other, particularly mass shootings.

Cheers,

Slobodan:

I think you're gonna have to get a tag team together to keep these folks from triple teaming you.  They've come up with a three step to never allow a consistent story to be analyzed.  To tom b any shooting in America is the fault of gun laws plain and simple.  But if you point to a mass killing in a country with very strict gun laws like France or Germany then Manoli will say you are confusing gun violence with terrorism.  Then if you want to analyze this terrorism in, say, Nice or Germany then BartvanderWolf will scold you for not realizing that the underlying cause is frustration or possibly a bad hair day.  You cannot win.

P.S.  Also notice that regardless of what rationale each of these team mates is assigning to the problem they mostly ignore the inconsistency between their versions and even support each other.  The ones criticized are only those questioning the anti-american narrative.  Very predictable but very good at avoiding consistent analysis of the problem.

[Zorki5]

in relation both to what you said, and to what you probably meant 

First, got confused since I did not imply any secondary meaning... And then I re-read my post 

[Jim Pascoe]

It seems the gunman in Munich was 18 years old, shot lots of people killing 8, then turned the gun on himself.  Motives as of yet unknown.

The sort of act very hard to defend against in any country with or without strict gun controls with a determined attacker who is also prepared to die themselves.  Sad for all concerned including the kid who committed the act.

Jim

[stamper]

Mostly the same members arguing over very similar subjects and none of the previous threads had a satisfactory conclusion? How many pages before the thread gets locked? 

[Manoli]

The ones criticized are only those questioning the anti-american narrative.

Nothing like hyperbole and a good dose of gaussian blur to obfuscate the issue, eh ?
Ken Cameron's post (#20) above, puts it succinctly and well.

[pegelli]

Irony:

Nice connection, but again it's how you look at things.

For instance in 2013 Germany had > 3500 traffic death. So while these gunman attacks are bad and shouldn't happen I find that the atmosphere of fear and doom that is created around them is out of proportion with the number of casualties by this cause. The US had about 34.000 traffic death in 2013. So what creates a bigger doom I ask myself? All these traffic death are senseless as well and many could be prevented if people would be a bit more patient in traffic, follow the rules, didn't drive under the influence and basically be a bit more careful. And while there are programs working on that the amount of communication and public outrage/fear over these death are much less then the outrage and fear over criminal and/or terrorist killings, while the numbers are orders of magnitude higher.

While I believe it would be a good thing that the US would do more to make getting guns (especially for nutters and criminals) a bit harder and better controlled I also agree that gun control is not the solution to the problems. There's too many illegal guns and other means (bombs, trucks, ....) for criminals and terrorists to create the havoc they are after. I agree with Bart that the root cause of all this is deeper.

I don't think they have found the motivation of the gunman (or men) in Germany yet, but I find it remarkable that it's happening on the 5th anniversary of the Anders Breivik massacre in Norway. I wouldn't be surprised if the shooting in München didn't come from the minds of ISIS, but from the minds of an ultra right wing extremist. We'll see how it develops and what new information about this will become available over the coming days.

EDIT: just found a newspaper article saying that the gunman was an 18 year old German born man with Iranian roots. So my conclusion above was premature 

[LesPalenik]

For instance in 2013 Germany had > 3500 traffic death. So while these gunman attacks are bad and shouldn't happen I find that the atmosphere of fear and doom that is created around them is out of proportion with the number of casualties by this cause. The US had about 34.000 traffic death in 2013.

Must be due to the lower speed limits on American highways (or greater proportion of cars with automatic transmission and cruise control).

[pegelli]

Must be due to the lower speed limits on American highways (or greater proportion of cars with automatic transmission and cruise control).

It's off topic for the discussion here, but the US has 4 times the inhabitants vs. Germany and 10 times the number of traffic death. So the US roads are a lot less save, despite lower speed limits and use of automatic transmission/cruise control.

Also if you look per Billion miles driven the US has a ~50% higher traffic death rate vs. Germany (4.9 in Germany vs. 7.1 in the US)

[jfirneno]

Nothing like hyperbole and a good dose of gaussian blur to obfuscate the issue, eh ?
Ken Cameron's post (#20) above, puts it succinctly and well.

Pattern recognition.  Hard to miss.

[Robert Roaldi]

Analyzing information: http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong

[tom b]

Food for thought:

"Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But they didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011? His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, “I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.”

In fact, in the same manifesto (“December and January – Rifle/gun accessories purchased”, Breivik wrote that it was from a US supplier that he purchased – and had mailed – ten 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack."

Cheers,

[pegelli]

P.S.  Also notice that regardless of what rationale each of these team mates is assigning to the problem they mostly ignore the inconsistency between their versions and even support each other.  The ones criticized are only those questioning the anti-american narrative. 

Two things on your post above:
-1- I don't think there is a "team" of people trying to "win" an argument, there's different people with different opinions so why should these all be consistent? Reading all the threads about this issue I have seen many different reasonings for and against gun control and on both sides there have been inconsistencies between supporting their case. I don't see any problem with that, since it's coming from individuals and not teams.
- I think there's plenty of mutual criticizing between people generally for and generally against gun control.

In my mind as soon as you are trying to place people in "camps" part of the value of this discussion is lost.
That's why I like Slobodan's credo below his avatar so much. "When everybody thinks the same .... nobody thinks", we all should keep thinking as individuals and not just blindly follow one line if we think we're on the same "team"

[pegelli]

Food for thought:

"Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But they didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011? His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, “I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.”

In fact, in the same manifesto (“December and January – Rifle/gun accessories purchased”, Breivik wrote that it was from a US supplier that he purchased – and had mailed – ten 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack."

Cheers,

But despite all of this he still got his rounds and made his vicious killings. Without the controls in Norway (or other countries with tight controls) it might happen more or with greater magnitude but gun control alone is in my mind never going to solve the issue.

[jfirneno]

Two things on your post above:
-1- I don't think there is a "team" of people trying to "win" an argument, there's different people with different opinions so why should these all be consistent? Reading all the threads about this issue I have seen many different reasonings for and against gun control and on both sides there have been inconsistencies between supporting their case. I don't see any problem with that, since it's coming from individuals and not teams.
- I think there's plenty of mutual criticizing between people generally for and generally against gun control.

In my mind as soon as you are trying to place people in "camps" part of the value of this discussion is lost.

Pieter:

I'm just noting that really all the other camps will cooperate against one particular camp.  Basically the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  It's pretty transparent.

[pegelli]

Pieter:

I'm just noting that really all the other camps will cooperate against one particular camp.  Basically the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  It's pretty transparent.

Well, my point is that I think there are no "camps" or "teams". I also see no enemies, I just see people with a different opinion then mine but for the world I can't see them as enemies.

[jfirneno]

Well, my point is that I think there are no "camps" or "teams". I also see no enemies, I just see people with a different opinion then mine but for the world I can't see them as enemies.

Use whatever descriptions you are comfortable with.  The effect is the same.  Whether you're on a debating team, playing chess, soccer or fighting a war, the dynamic is basically the same.  Win, lose, draw.  The differences are the names we give to the tools and tactics.

[RSL]

Hi Russ,

How about motive ?

If somebody's shooting at me I don't give a damn about his motive. I just want to stop him.

. . . in case one wants to find a way of preventing the next shooting. Identifying the root cause, may allow to solve it better/faster.

Oh yeah. Here comes that "root cause" thing the left always trots out. The only way to stop the shooter is to shoot him before he starts shooting. If you're going to wait for the cops to arrive you're going to be too late. If you're still alive you can worry about the "root cause" later.

By the way, when some guy stands there yelling "Allahu Akbar" as he mows down a bunch of kids, you may not be able to identify the "root cause," but some of us have a pretty clear idea what it is.

[RSL]

And the cultural differences within Europe are also huge.

They may be huge but self-defense doesn't seem to be a high priority, which is why the UK and the US have to keep going over there and saving their asses.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  Motives as of yet unknown...

German-Iranian... Hmmm... Yelling "Allahu Akbar!"... Hmmm...let me think about it.