Germany Train Attack

[Turkhammer]

The 2nd amendment was made in a completely different time, refers to a regulated militia, where guns were large and slow firing muskets, not something you stuff in your pants.

The US Supreme Court Heller decision says differently.  It held that there is an individual constitutional right to bear firearms. 

[Thomek]

Yes, and they promptly disregard that it was written in a vastly different time. Where you had random attacks from the indians, just had a major war with european powers, a wild west etc..

This way of reading the constitution called "Orginialism" equates to religious fanatics that read the Bible or the Quran by the letter.

[Leesin]

The US Supreme Court Heller decision says differently.  It held that there is an individual constitutional right to bear firearms.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Xant]

especially now that DNA goes everywhere.

Exactly the opposite, knives are better if you want to get away with murder.

[Tydeus]

Reason is of course easy access to guns, of which around 75% of their homicides can be attributed to. (2012:  8,897 firearm related murders)

Now, how fucking thick you have to be, to understand that having lots and lots of guns makes it more likely to usechoose one?

More guns makes it more likely to choose to use a gun. Your argument only works in cases where no other type of weapon that is of relatively similar ease to acquire could have been used to commit the murder. Some people might just be dense, but I have a feeling they just want a solution that actually gets to the heart of the problem(why people commit murder in the first place).

It's like nerfing one handers and polearms because you can't figure out how to only nerf two-handers. Except that we're talking about people's rights, whether you think they're justified or not, it takes a lot to convince a person to give up one of their rights.

[Thomek]

More guns makes it more likely to choose to use a gun.

Well if you choose a gun, you are much more likely to succeed, and if you are more likely to succeed, you are more likely to go through with it. Would Einstein attack Poland if he thought he would loose?

It's like people are assuming the same would happen without guns. Which is retarded.

[Asheram]

The US Supreme Court Heller decision says differently.  It held that there is an individual constitutional right to bear firearms.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Xant]

Well if you choose a gun, you are much more likely to succeed, and if you are more likely to succeed, you are more likely to go through with it. Would Einstein attack Poland if he thought he would loose?

It's like people are assuming the same would happen without guns. Which is retarded.

Citation needed. You're just ASSuming that people who want to murder other people would go like "nah, it'd be too hard to knife him from behind, I'd totally kill him if I had a gun though."

[Thomek]

Well, as you obviously know, it's impossible to travel back in time, remove the gun, and see what happens.

We are left with logic and common sense:

For example, what if the guy you wanted to murder wasn't standing with his back to you? Attacking him with a knife, especially without training would be a high risk proposition. He could wrestle the knife from you, and kill u with it.

If both have guns, there's another game theory layer, the only option that will guarantee your survival is to shoot first. You don't even need to know for sure that he has a gun, just the reasonable chance is enough to make it advantageous for you to pull the trigger.

That's just two pretty common situations where guns raise the stakes and makes murder much more likely.

How hard is to understand that letting people, PEOPLE, the average and below idiots, carry and play with tools which can murder anyone on the slightest temporary mental whim. It's insanity.

For collectors, gunlovers, and people generally able and motivated enough to take a course, do an exam and get a mental checkup, let them have whatever they want I say.

[Xant]

Well, as you obviously know, it's impossible to travel back in time, remove the gun, and see what happens.

We are left with logic and common sense:

For example, what if the guy you wanted to murder wasn't standing with his back to you? Attacking him with a knife, especially without training would be a high risk proposition. He could wrestle the knife from you, and kill u with it.

If both have guns, there's another game theory layer, the only option that will guarantee your survival is to shoot first. You don't even need to know for sure that he has a gun, just the reasonable chance is enough to make it advantageous for you to pull the trigger.

That's just two pretty common situations where guns raise the stakes and makes murder much more likely.

How hard is to understand that letting people, PEOPLE, the average and below idiots, carry and play with tools which can murder anyone on the slightest temporary mental whim. It's insanity.

For collectors, gunlovers, and people generally able and motivated enough to take a course, do an exam and get a mental checkup, let them have whatever they want I say.

Yes, we can't know. That doesn't mean you can take your opinion and call it "logic and common sense."

Knives are better in close quarters than firearms. And in how many situations would it be impossible for the attacker to wait for his victim to turn his back? To get a car and drive him over? To hit him in the head with a stone? And so on. Those statistics don't exist, yet "common sense" suggests most murders don't have to happen on the exact second that they happened, and the attacker could have adapted their attack to a different tool. If you really want to kill someone, then I'd say it's extremely unlikely you decide to not go through with it simply because you don't have a gun.

Then there's another thing to consider: how many murders DON'T happen because the potential victim is armed, or the would-be murderer thinks they might be armed?

[Beauchamp]

US is in a nice club of countries when it gets to intentional homicide rate:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Point is, they shouldn't be there. They are so much richer, stable and developed than the rest of the countries there, that it doesn't make any sense at all.
Reason is of course easy access to guns, of which around 75% of their homicides can be attributed to. (2012:  8,897 firearm related murders)

Now, how fucking thick you have to be, to understand that having lots and lots of guns makes it more likely to use one? It's a quick, effective and safe tool to ensure murder for the killer. It's much less messy than using a knife, especially now that DNA goes everywhere. It's also way easier for suicide than to hang yourself or other slow, painful or unsure methods that require planning and meticulous execution. (Buy, get medicine, be guaranteed alone for hours or whatnot. Many people change their minds or are unable to successfully do it when they are in that mood. A gun is a press of a button. )

I can kind of understand it if you are a criminal, or under high risk of violent criminal activity for some reason. Or if you simply love guns. (Guns are fun, I shot the G3 and mp5 in the army, was even a decent shooter.)

I understand the country is flooded with guns, and it would be a long undertaking to reduce the amount, but you have to start somewhere. And that is, to at the least, ensure that if people want guns, they have to be a member of a club, take a shooting exam, and know how to use and store their firearms. Maybe even a mental checkup/doctors paper every 4-5 years. It really isn't too much to ask, similar things are required for drivers.

The 2nd amendment was made in a completely different time, refers to a regulated militia, where guns were large and slow firing muskets, not something you stuff in your pants.

problem is - if you'd deduct black population from the statistics, they have almost the same homicide rate as any other european country - and yeah its statistically proven fact (the most homicides are among black males aged 20-25 and i mean really like "the most").

[Oberyn]

Apologies for the Daily Mail rag link, but mostly using it for the video of the "17" year old "boy".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696410/Man-attacks-21-people-AXE-train-Germany-shot-police.html#v-1953696156883437776

[LordBerenger]

problem is - if you'd deduct black population from the statistics, they have almost the same homicide rate as any other european country - and yeah its statistically proven fact (the most homicides are among black males aged 20-25 and i mean really like "the most").

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Butan]

Citation needed that they would have the same homicide rate as any other European country

Well, if its true that blacks in the US have most homicides (50%+ ~) , you just have to see if their current intentional homicide rate is half that of any other European country dood.

[Turkhammer]

Yes, and they promptly disregard that it was written in a vastly different time. Where you had random attacks from the indians, just had a major war with european powers, a wild west etc..

This way of reading the constitution called "Orginialism" equates to religious fanatics that read the Bible or the Quran by the letter.

As opposed to "Judicial Activism" in which judges rewrite the Constitution according to their own individual proclivities?  There's a method for changing the Constitution.  The opponents of the 2nd Amendment can propose a constitutional amendment to rescind the 2nd Amendment.