Gun Control

[SuAside]

Because I thought we where talking about ideologies/ideas and not people. If we talk about ethnicities, this changes the whole picture. But ideologies are extremely persistent, because well, you can't shoot them. You can only shoot people.

A lot of ideologies exist which can be exterminated. Christian faith can be wiped off the face of the Earth by killing all Christians and destroying all their literature and monuments.

But "general" things such as socialism, communism, capitalism, etc can't be exterminated since they would just be reinvented.

Which also means that if a society is moving in that direction, there is only very little that can be done, in my opinion. More and more americans feel that gun regulations should be in order.

If enough people respond with "GET OFF MY FUCKING LAWN", then it could well be that the cost of implementing such regulation suddenly becomes more costly than not implementing it, making the discussion moot. (not that I advocate violence in any way myself, I would just move away)

But at least from a few polls I have seen, if they can be trusted, around 70% of the US citizens are in favour of changes.

Such as better background checks, sure. But actual bans and severe restrictions? I highly doubt it.
Polls are also effectively worthless. It's quite common for either side to rig them by spreading information about a certain poll being taken to sway the results in their favor. It's extremely common for online newspaper polls to suddenly disappear off the site as soon as the "wrong" side starts winning.

Considering the growing number of mass shootings in the recent years it is very likely that it will also take more momentum.

And yet, gun crime per capita has pretty much never been so low?

Q:Why do you need it? A:Because it is my right.
I think you're confusing rights and needs. Also, like all rights, it's clearly man-given.

The right to defend yourself and your property is an american right, though.
Also, he's toying with you. Don't get sucked in.

But... I don't want to yell that. Why would I want to yell that? It wouldn't get you jailed, though. Try "kill all niggers", maybe.

The first article in the German constitution establishes the inviolability of human dignity as a fundamental right. Hate speech laws aim to protect that right, mostly. Freedom of speech is established in article five.

The problem is: where do you draw the line? If someone decides for you what you can laugh with or what you can say, who regulates that person? And based on what do you make your policies?
Should we actually fine or imprison holocaust deniers for disagreeing with us? What about the people who say Mohammed was a pedophile? Who decides these things and how do you draw that line in the sand? In Sweden it's illegal to report the origin of criminals. How can we tackle a problem if we can't even talk about the facts anymore? Because yes, once you start regulating these things, you quickly slip into even banning truth.

The guy in Munich who insulted an active mass shooter when he was on the roof, is getting sued for hate speech in Germany. Isn't that taking it in an absurd direction, Buxy? The guy just shot a bunch of people, but you certainly hurt his poor lil' feelings (and that of the SJWs) by yelling racial slurs at him.

 

[Crni Vuk]

A lot of ideologies exist which can be exterminated. Christian faith can be wiped off the face of the Earth by killing all Christians and destroying all their literature and monuments.

Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, or if you bang your head against a wall there is a chance that all the atoms will make enough room for your head to phase trough it. A lot of things are possible. But I am talking about the practicability. Two third of the worlds population are christian for example.

I think I simply have history on my side in this particular argument. Ideas and ideologies can't be shoot.

If enough people respond with "GET OFF MY FUCKING LAWN", then it could well be that the cost of implementing such regulation suddenly becomes more costly than not implementing it, making the discussion moot. (not that I advocate violence in any way myself, I would just move away)

Societies change. It is a slow and gradual process, but it eventually happens. Who could have foretold some 200 or 250 years ago that we would see one day a black president who's supporting a female presidential candidate and both talk in favour of LGBT rights. Who knows what else might happen in 100 or 150 years from now? I certainly don't know it.

It is also interesting how quick some in the US are to denny someone the 1th amedment of the consitution, simply because they are talking about the possbility that the 2th amedment could be changed, because changes to the constitution, happend already in the past. No one ever said that this is likely, or that it would ever happen or what ever.

But I am curious what those same people would do, if it ever happens that a majority would really change it in like 100 years. The founding fathers understood what a democracy is and how it is supposed to work and gave the people the necessarily tools to make changes here. Anything else would be undemocratic and the rule of the minority over the majority.

Such as better background checks, sure. But actual bans and severe restrictions? I highly doubt it.

Absolutely, I am certain we would rathe see an american president who identifies himself as transgender apache attack helicopter then a complete ban on weapons. We are on the same page here.

And yet, gun crime per capita has pretty much never been so low?

That's why I said mass shootings, and they have grown in the last decade. At least in the US. I don't believe that crime is necessarily directly related to the number of weapons that are in circulation. But I don't think I ever talked about that.

The problem is: where do you draw the line? If someone decides for you what you can laugh with or what you can say, who regulates that person? And based on what do you make your policies?

I think Buxxxie is more hinting at the fact that many americans believe Germany would be some kind of opressive regime where political corectness is used as some kind of cencorship. You can say a lot of things in Germany. It's just that outright hate speech simply can get you in trouble. Exterminate the Niggers/Jews/insert-minority-here for example, is a reasonable line to draw, at least in my opinion. Particularly when the intention of said line is very clear. Mind you, we are not talking about someone who's making jokes about it or using it for satire. We are talking about neo-nazi and racist groups on facebook or public statements etc.

The right to defend yourself and your property is an american right, though.

In which European Nation isn't it a right to defend your self and your property?

NSA spies on you too, bub.

(...)

News flash, The German Intelligence services spy on thier own citizens so do The French and other Europeans. Me thinks its the typical selective euro outrage.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/26/12_other_governments_that_enjoy_spying_on_their_citizens_partner/

Of course they do. But how is that relevant?

 

[Operation Wignut]

Two third of the worlds population are christian for example.

Uh, no. I have no idea where you got that, but ALMOST 1/3 of the world is Christian. So you're definitely off.

Societies change. It is a slow and gradual process, but it eventually happens. 200 years ago no one in their right mind would have believed that you would one day see a black president who's supporting a female presidential candidate and both talk in favour of LGBT rights. Who knows what else might happen in 100 or 150 years from now? I certainly don't know it.

Well, history has shown we GAIN more rights, not take them away. Blacks didn't use to have many rights, gays were discriminated, transgender people weren't even recognized, women couldn't vote, ect. ect. So the idea that we'll LOSE rights isn't established in historical representation.

It is also interesting how quick some in the US are to take away the 1th amedment of the consitution simply because someone is talking about the possbility that the 2th amedment could be changed, because changes to the constitution, happend already in the past. No one ever said that this is likely, or that it would ever happen or what ever.

First off, Alex Jones as a representation of gun nuts is ridiculous cherry-picking and impertinent to the conversation. Secondly, amendments ARE changes to the Constitution. Aside from the 18th amendment (which TOOK AWAY the right to alcohol consumption), no amendment has ever been repealed. Because again, history shows we go in the direction of MORE rights, not less.

But I am curious what those same people would do, if it ever happens that a majority would really change it in like 100 years. The founding fathers understood what a democracy is and how it is supposed to work and gave the people the necessarily tools to make changes here. Anything else would be undemocratic and the rule of the minority over the majority.

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law.

If even there is a time that the People rebel against the State, whoever wins gets to write the history books.

That's why I said mass shootings, and they have grown in the last decade. At least in the US.

They have in Europe, as well.

I think Buxxxie is more hinting at the fact that many americans believe Germany would be some kind of opressive regime where political corectness is used as some kind of cencorship. You can say a lot of things in Germany. It's just that outright hate speech simply can get you in trouble. Exterminate the Niggers/Jews/insert-minority-here for example, is a reasonable line to draw, at least in my opinion. Particularly when the intention of said line is very clear. Mind you, we are not talking about someone who's making jokes about it or using it for satire. We are talking about neo-nazi and racist groups on facebook or public statements etc.

How is that punishment-worthy? Arrest people for violent hate crimes, sure. But if they aren't doing anything, what's the point? If they are actually plotting an attack on people, that's different. But just saying "I'm gonna kill all the fucking Jews and niggers" means nothing. Especially if you post it on Facebook. If there's no obvious intent, then it is criminalizing opinions. No matter how foul those opinions are, that's wrong.

In which European Nation isn't it a right to defend your self and your property?

What's the point of empty promises, though? If someone robbing you has an illegal gun, and you have NO GUN, it's an empty right.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yeah, my mistake I was reading it wrong when I glanced over it (... In 1910, about two-thirds of the world's Christians lived in Europe), but that doesn't change the point, as like it would really mater if we talk about nearly 2 billion or 5 at this point. It doesn't matter. You can't effectively eradicate christianty with weapons just like that, as it is one of the largest religious groups. But yes, I was off with the numbers. I give you that. I am deeply sorry.

]Well, history has shown we GAIN more rights, not take them away. Blacks didn't use to have many rights, gays were discriminated, transgender people weren't even recognized, women couldn't vote, ect. ect. So the idea that we'll LOSE rights isn't established in historical representation.

Still societes can and have changed. Even though, I said plenty of times that this particular case, is very very very very very very very very unlikely ...

But I think it is fair to say that no one knows what might happen in 50 or 100 years. Maybe the number of weapon owners will at some point get so low that we will see more regulations?- Regulations, not rights taken away. But, what do I know. My magic crystal ball is as good like anyones. I mean Australia has changd their laws, Britain and a couple more. So it definetly can happen. If it will happen? No one knows. - I repeat it again, I think that this is very unlikely for the US, and I do NOT(!) know if a simple ban or more restrictions would be enough to adress the issue of mass shootings in the US.

First off, Alex Jones as a representation of gun nuts is ridiculous cherry-picking and impertinent to the conversation

Good that I said, some. Jeff Jefferies, also got a lot of mails by Americans - at least he claims he did - where they tell him that he should shut up because he is a foreigner. John Oliver, also a comedian, got similar responses to his stance on weapons and other topics regarding US policies. So it is fair to say that those people exist. I never said those are representative for all and every weapon owner or that they would be even the majority, however they sure are a loud bunch. And there is definetly a certain mindset that exist in some gun fanatics.

They have in Europe, as well.

Yes we do, but nowhere even nearly as much like the US. Even if you acount for the size difference. Are you in denial about it? I am just saying it happens more often in the US per capita. It also happens more often in the US when you compare the US with all of Europe. The US is home to nearly a third of all mass shootings in western nations since the 1960s. The numbers can vary depending on how you define mass shootings, but one thing is clear, it happens an awfull lot in the US. Particularly if we concentrate only on those shootings which was not motivated by a crime, like a burgulary, bank robbery etc.

How is that punishment-worthy?

Beacuse part of our constitution says dignity of men is unimpeachable. I hope I don't have to explain what dignity means. We have a constitution, and it is relatively clear as far as that goes, the roots for this article are rooted in the history of Germany where speech was a key element for the Nazis. Our authorities take it very serious, if a group or a person openly talks about exterminating niggers, or any other minority for that matter.
You can like this, or not. But I give our constitution as much value like you give yours. However, I am not saying the German Grundgesetzt is better or worse than the supreme law of the United States of America.

What's the point of empty promises, though?

I don't know how effective guns are for self protection. They might, or might not be good tools for self defence. I frankly don't know enough about it.

However, I would argue that a gun needs at least some expertise and regular use to be really effective in such a scenario. Otherwise you could as well ask, what you will do if the burgular has 20 years of experience in Jiu Jitzu when you get in hand to hand combat.

The question was, that you have no right to defend your self. The means by how you do it, and how effective it is, are open to debate of course.

 

[Juza The Cloud]

Thats assuming you have a point of course jk : p

 

[Dr Fallout]

America has lots of guns.

America has lots of gun homicides (most in the developed world).

Now I understand why you wouldn't want to lose your precious guns, but either their's a connection or America is screwed up. You keep on mentioning how America is screwed up (I'm inclined to agree with that) but never offer explanations of why and how to solve it.

 

[Francis H]

America has lots of guns.

America has lots of gun homicides (most in the developed world).

Now I understand why you wouldn't want to lose your precious guns, but either their's a connection or America is screwed up. You keep on mentioning how America is screwed up (I'm inclined to agree with that) but never offer explanations of why and how to solve it.

Brazil has a lot of gun control.

Brazil has a lot of gun homicides.

I ain´t saying that gun control is responsible for that(god knows we have a lot of problems), but just saying something is related to another thing doesn´t make it true.

For my two cents, yes, there should be tight gun control. Most cases where people say gun control would help is if you: a) are a light sleeper; and b) if you have quick reflexes. My opnion, not many people have both qualities. You want to shoot guns for fun? Fine, me too. There´s shooting ranges for that.

 

[Izak]

Most cases where people say gun control would help is if you: a) are a light sleeper; and b) if you have quick reflexes.

What?

 

[Buxbaum666]

The right to defend yourself and your property is an american right, though.
Also, he's toying with you. Don't get sucked in.

The only thing that is American about it is people thinking "guns equal self-defense". We have the right to defend ourselves, too.

The problem is: where do you draw the line? If someone decides for you what you can laugh with or what you can say, who regulates that person?

The courts? I don't see how this is different from any other laws.

And based on what do you make your policies?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostock-Lichtenhagen_riots)

Should we actually fine or imprison holocaust deniers for disagreeing with us? What about the people who say Mohammed was a pedophile? Who decides these things and how do you draw that line in the sand?

Holocaust deniers don't "disagree with us", they argue against historical facts. It's a deliberate attempt to belittle the victims and survivors.
Again, no different from other laws.

In Sweden it's illegal to report the origin of criminals. How can we tackle a problem if we can't even talk about the facts anymore? Because yes, once you start regulating these things, you quickly slip into even banning truth.

Ah, Truth™. How many problems with crime have successfully been "tackled" by "talking about the facts"? What is actually being gained by people knowing the "origin" of criminals?

The guy in Munich who insulted an active mass shooter when he was on the roof, is getting sued for hate speech in Germany. Isn't that taking it in an absurd direction, Buxy? The guy just shot a bunch of people, but you certainly hurt his poor lil' feelings (and that of the SJWs) by yelling racial slurs at him.

A criminal complaint has been filed against the guy, yeah. I doubt it will actually lead to anything. He used the media attention (I threw a bottle to stop the guy, where's my medal?) to rage against Merkel letting in all this riff-raff, ignoring that the shooter was German.

 

[Dr Fallout]

the shooter was German.

I did not know that. Thank you for making what appeared to be a simple refugee problem appear deeper.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The guy was born in Germany, his parents are from Iran. It turns out that he was inspired by Brevik, celebrated the fact that his birthday was the same as Hitlers and some people who knew him from gaming in counter strike claim that he was talking more and more against foreigners. Yes, it is definetly more complex then just refugees.

*Edit
However, our right wing nut jobs couldn't resist to tweet just a few hours after the incident, and they knew emidately who was to blame. Merkel and refugees. Who needs investigations again?

 

[Dr Fallout]

The guy was born in Germany, his parents are from Iran. It turns out that he was inspired by Brevik, celebrated the fact that his birthday was the same as Hitlers and some people who knew him from gaming say that he was talking more and more against foreigners. Yes, it is definetly more complex then just refugees.

Much more complex... shame that many pass it off as simple geography and skin colour.

 

[Francis H]

What?

Sorry, wrote that after getting off work and was really tired.

Some people that want gun control give the example of someone breaking into their house in the middle night, so that's why I cited those two characteristics. Still doesn't make that much sense, considering there are many other reasons, but that was my original train of thought.

 

[SuAside]

Societies change. It is a slow and gradual process, but it eventually happens.

Sure they do, but you can't force change on people. There will always be people who don't want to play along.

That's why I said mass shootings, and they have grown in the last decade. At least in the US.

They aren't very statistically relevant though. They are emotionally relevant.

As has been shown world wide, if spree shooters can't use guns, they'll use explosive, cars/trucks, machetes and knives.

I'm all for preventing spree shooters from getting guns, but only in a fashion which does not overly restrict legal gun owners in their hobbies and self-defense.

In which European Nation isn't it a right to defend your self and your property?

Most of them, actually.

In Belgium I'm not allowed to shoot someone who burgles my house, steals my car keys and loads my computer & my tv into my trunk and drives off. We are never allowed to protect property with violence here. Even just hitting the guy could land me in jail and have all my guns confiscated if he is not physically violent to me.

In the UK, a man shot two burglars with a double barreled shotgun after his house had been burgled multiple times before. One is dead, meaning the poor man is in prison for manslaughter. Subsequently the surviving burglar has sued the man because he is maimed for life. I believe he won his case...
While the poor home owner isn't serving a life sentence, he won't be getting out soon.

The only thing that is American about it is people thinking "guns equal self-defense". We have the right to defend ourselves, too.

But no effective means to do so.
Pepper spray, stunguns, tasers, telescoping batons, and so on are all illegal to carry for self-defense, let alone firearms.
How exactly are you supposed to defend yourself if you're stripped of all tools which might aid your defense? The odds are certainly at your disadvantage.

Holocaust deniers don't "disagree with us", they argue against historical facts. It's a deliberate attempt to belittle the victims and survivors.

I have no way to verify this beyond a reasonable doubt though.

Historical truth is a strange thing... Hard science we can try to prove & disprove, but historical proof is extremely easy to manipulate by the victor and following generations.

I'm obviously not saying that's the case here, but I see no reason why someone could not legitimately doubt the number of jews killed in extermination camps. Science does not need a thought police. People should be allowed to debate whatever they damn well please as long as it does not threaten others.

Advocating the Endlösung should be illegal, as it threatens other members of society and our way of life. Debating the holocaust should be perfectly fine though.

Ah, Truth™. How many problems with crime have successfully been "tackled" by "talking about the facts"? What is actually being gained by people knowing the "origin" of criminals?

Wait, first you are advocating the suppression of all discussion about the holocaust (because that's going against true history), but now you're saying empirical statistics from the swedish ministry of justice are not truth? Or what is going on here?

If you cannot identify the purpetrators of crime, the type of crime, their modus operandi and their motives, then how can you possibly hope to create policies which reduce crime?

If the majority of crime in a given city originates from a certain ghetto and you keep those statistics suppressed because of the ethnicity of the people living there, how can you hope to tackle the problem? This doesn't need to be a negative thing. You can increase social work, education, uplift the neighborhood, have outreach programs, and so on. When you think censoring the flow of legitimate information is acceptable, what kind of society are you building? What else are you willing to suppress & lie about?

A criminal complaint has been filed against the guy, yeah. I doubt it will actually lead to anything.

I'd certainly hope not.
To clarify for other readers, some random woman who was entirely unrelated to the whole thing, sued the guy who helped the police by keeping the shooter distracted. While that probably wasn't his motivation, it's retarded to sue the guy...

He used the media attention (I threw a bottle to stop the guy, where's my medal?) to rage against Merkel letting in all this riff-raff, ignoring that the shooter was German.

Ali Dāūd "David" Sonboly is a second generation immigrant, which incidently have been proven to be the most problematic immigrants to integrate. This generation has a tendency to rebel in extreme ways (religious revival, extreme political views, drug abuse, crime as an outlet against society,...). It's theorized that this is largely because they lack a group of people they belong to. They have no self-image. They are not viewed as true citizens of the country they were born in and not true citizens of the countries their parents came from.
Not recognizing this is sticking your head in the sand and is not helping the situation at all. We should be helping these kids.

The guy was born in Germany, his parents are from Iran. It turns out that he was inspired by Brevik, celebrated the fact that his birthday was the same as Hitlers and some people who knew him from gaming in counter strike claim that he was talking more and more against foreigners. Yes, it is definetly more complex then just refugees.

I find it amazing how everyone glosses over the fact that Hitler had close ties to arabs in the Middle East. He worked closely with them and made them all kinds of promises. Obviously they were also supportive of the idea of exterminating jews too.
Yasser Arafat's mentor, Haj Amin Al Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem was a close collaborator with Hitler.

The spiderweb is far more complicated than it appears.
"David"'s actions do not need to be counter to any of the statements made.

 

[kraag]

America has lots of guns.

America has lots of gun homicides (most in the developed world).

Now I understand why you wouldn't want to lose your precious guns, but either their's a connection or America is screwed up. You keep on mentioning how America is screwed up (I'm inclined to agree with that) but never offer explanations of why and how to solve it.

Sorry, but, you can't just say "America has lots of guns" because not every state has exactly the same firearm laws.
What would be a more accurate statement would be something like this:

"American states with tighter firearm control laws have higher firearm-related crime rates than the states with more relaxed firearm laws."

Do you think a criminal would be more likely to trespass with intent to steal from a home that is likely armed to the teeth - or more likely to break into a home in a state which he knows doesn't allow its citizens to own firearms?

Cops don't instantly arrive via teleportation to your house the exact moment a criminal is breaking into it - they're gonna be a few minutes depending on certain things. [X] So why don't we go ask that nice criminal if he wants to hang about for a bit and have some tea and scrumpets while the police finish their donuts and coffee and meander over to your house to clean up the mess? [X] [In the case where I live, they would literally take HOURS to get here. Not due to their incompetence mind you, but because I choose not to live in a city full of morons.]

For the reason above I'd much prefer to be able to legally take matters into my own hands with my own guns but in my country [Australia] I can only use "equal force*" (sometimes not even that depending on the cops personal attitude) but that doesn't include using a firearm for self defense. So if a criminal comes in to my home brandishing a firearm looking to steal my property or worse - I'm completely fucked. I'm not gonna have time to call the cops! [Also can't own any kind of purpose-built personal defense devices like body armor, stunguns, pepper spray etc. However, I AM allowed to own a cheap cricket bat.]

But this is all by design, they want people helpless at the whim of criminals because it keeps the police in the job. As long as these governmental corporations are creating scarcity of basic human needs - 'criminals' will always exist.

* lulz, peep this one for a joke: "Equal force" means I have to wait for the attacker to attack me so I can judge what equal force I should be applying back to them! True story. "So, you used a Machete to my face eh?! Well cop this... Wait, what???!"

 

[Crni Vuk]

Sure they do, but you can't force change on people. There will always be people who don't want to play along.

I am not saying those changes necessarily come with force. Besides the opposite of it is true as well, if society is changing in a direction that is anti-gun, you can't really force a change here either, well maybe they can with all their guns ... to be serious, I hope you get the picture.

They aren't very statistically relevant though. They are emotionally relevant.

As has been shown world wide, if spree shooters can't use guns, they'll use explosive, cars/trucks, machetes and knives.

I'm all for preventing spree shooters from getting guns, but only in a fashion which does not overly restrict legal gun owners in their hobbies and self-defense.

Dead people are dead people in my opinion. Sure, the solution should be in proportion with the issue we are talking about, and yes there are statistics that tell us that far more people die due to infections in hospitals and other issues that need to be adressed. However, that shouldn't keep us from looking at solutions for mass shootings as well. Or at least to discuss potential causes.

Besides, just as food for thought, the numbers of immigrants which comit crimes like we saw them in Munich, is extremly low, to use your words 'They aren't very statistically relevant', yet it seems to be relevant enough for you to mention 'Ali Dāūd "David" Sonboly is a second generation immigrant'. I guess 'They are emotionally relevant.' . Which should give you a hint why we Germans don't like it so much to make a fuss about, if a criminal was now black, turkish, white or what ever. Our authorities have reasons why they don't make it a big thing, out of experience on how certain groups react, and that it can lead to cases as we saw them in Rostock in the 1990s. If you allow it to build up long enough. Emotions shouldn't play a part in this however!

Most of them, actually.

In Belgium I'm not allowed to shoot someone who burgles my house, steals my car keys and loads my computer & my tv into my trunk and drives off. We are never allowed to protect property with violence here. Even just hitting the guy could land me in jail and have all my guns confiscated if he is not physically violent to me.

Well, it is my opinion the force used in defence should be appropiate to the threat you experience. I am very well aware that this is a very delicate matter! And I am not disagreeing with you or trying to talk you down.

But I am really not sure if I want to see those mal-ninjas and wanna-be cops roaming around like in the US, shooting suspects, which might or might not be criminals. And I am not sure if those lead necessarily to more safety.

Again, please! Don't think I am against you in this. I just think that it is a complex and gray area. We should also keep in mind, that cases where someone is charged with a felony because he protected him self are also not very common, at least in Germany. And there is no perfect jurisdiction. Not in the US, and not in Europe.

In the UK, a man shot two burglars with a double barreled shotgun after his house had been burgled multiple times before. One is dead, meaning the poor man is in prison for manslaughter. Subsequently the surviving burglar has sued the man because he is maimed for life. I believe he won his case...
While the poor home owner isn't serving a life sentence, he won't be getting out soon.

There are definetly a lot of strange cases regarding gun restrictions and bizarre decisions in curtrooms.
I remember this one case, where a guy was charged for gun possession, he found it in his garden where someone threw it over his fence, at least he claims it. After he called the police and turned over the weapon they had to fill a charge against him. Beacuse for a brief time, he was in possession of an illegal fire arm ... I can't remember the whole case and I sadly can't find the article anymore. But I remember that it was a wtf moment.

However, there are also on the oposite side cases where you can't say if people aren't using self defence as a pretext to shoot someone. There certainly are people out there that you could describe as trigger happy. Teenagers who got shoot because they accessed the property of someone or the case with Zimmerman which left some open questions.

Advocating the Endlösung should be illegal, as it threatens other members of society and our way of life. Debating the holocaust should be perfectly fine though.

But ... you are allowed to debate the Holocaust in Germany, it might not make you popular depending on your stance, but it's not forbidden. You just aren't allowed to outright denny it and even here context matters a lot! And strange enough, the denniers are almost always to find in the extreme right wing.
Here is the actuall law we're talking about.

§ 130 Incitement to hatred

There is literaly no incident where an outright denial of the Hollocaust was used outside of right wing nutjobs like we saw them in the Youtube clip that Bux posted. People aren't making those statements in a vacuum, without some context here. You're not charged simply beacuse you discuss how many people might have died in the Holocaust, particularly as there are no absolute numbers anyway ...

 

[SuAside]

Besides, just as food for thought, the numbers of immigrants which comit crimes like we saw them in Munich, is extremly low, to use your words 'They aren't very statistically relevant', yet it seems to be relevant enough for you to mention 'Ali Dāūd "David" Sonboly is a second generation immigrant'. I guess 'They are emotionally relevant.'

Spree shooting is not common, no. But crime in general by second generation immigrants is through the roof. It certainly something which needs to be addressed.

Well, it is my opinion the force used in defence should be appropiate to the threat you experience. I am very well aware that this is a very delicate matter!

Of course, it's a delicate matter.
There's an insane case of a guy waiting on burglars to shoot them in the face in the US. I think he's doing life for premeditated murder. So even in the US the Castle Doctrine is not all encompasing.

But don't you find it ironic that someone is allowed to walk onto your property and steal everything you've worked your entire life for and you can't do anything about it as long as he doesn't threaten to harm you?

I remember this one case, where a guy was charged for gun possession, he found it in his garden where someone threw it over his fence, at least he claims it.

He was ex-military, back from serving his country in the sandbox... So he does his duty to take a gun off the streets of the UK, but then gets arrested for doing so.
I believe that he first got convicted but that that was turned over in appeals.

the case with Zimmerman

Zimmerman should not have followed Trayvon around. That was a lapse in judgement. But Zimmerman was neighborhood watch and there had been lots of burglaries in that area.

This lapse in judgement in no way shape or form allows Trayvon to assault Zimmerman (as evidenced by both injuries on Zimmerman and eye witness accounts).

You just aren't allowed to outright denny it

How are you supposed to debate something if one side is not allowed to deny it? Hah!

Belgium is even stricter in that respect btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Belgium

And strange enough, the denniers are almost always to find in the extreme right wing.

Why would that be strange?
It fits their agenda.

You're not charged simply beacuse you discuss how many people might have died in the Holocaust, particularly as there are no absolute numbers anyway ...

Denial of the whole thing is a valid position for debate.
It's a stupid position, but it should be fine to argue for it if you have arguments to back it up.

 

[Throatpunch]

Spree shooting is not common, no.

It bloody well is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_by_country

Spoiler

But crime in general by second generation immigrants is through the roof.

Source or statistics?

 

[SuAside]

It bloody well is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_by_country

Considering there are 310 million firearms in circulation in the USA, spree shootings are not common.
Mass shootings account for a tiny 4% of criminal gun deaths in the USA, and this includes gang related violence.
If you include all firearms related deaths, mass shootings represent 1.5% of all gun deaths in the USA.

"Common" means widespread or commonplace. I don't know what kind of odds you usually bet on, but the odds above are pretty fucking tiny.

Spoiler

Source or statistics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime

Do a search for "second" and read all sentences related to it. Should show you a clear pattern across many countries.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Spree shooting is not common, no. But crime in general by second generation immigrants is through the roof. It certainly something which needs to be addressed.

As far as I know, there are no official statistics regarding Germany concering second and third generation of migrants as a whole, like if they comit more or less crimes compared to German citizens. Because as far as the authorities goes, those people ARE German citizens! The law doesn't make a difference here between someone with great grandparents born in the south west part of Turkey or if they are 10th generation pure blooded Germans, so I would take any statistic that talks about crimes permited by second generation immigrants with a grain of salt. Even if they are from Wikipedia.

What is certianly true however, is that some groups here like to paint it as a general problem with its roots solely in foreigners. Like the AfD, NPD and a few more, who are all considered right wing or extreme right wing parties and groups. This is a very emotional debate, and many are playing with fear and anxiety to make their point. What ever if it is true however, is a whole different question. But that just by the way.

With saying this. It doesn't mean there would be no issues. Or that one shouldn't talk about some surveys, like those from criminologist Christian Pfeiffer, who made a study about juvenile crime in major cities in Germany. There are definetly a lot of young turkish people in Germany who have serious trouble with their identity, which can lead to more violence and crime. However, this is not a problem created by foreigners but it is a general problem which you find in almost any underclass or underprivileged groups, which is what Pfeiffer also says in his survey. And even German citizens with a turkish heritage like Lamya Kaddor agree that issues exist, and that it has to be adressed. How to adress it, is a whole different question alltogether though. For example similar studies display a grow in violent crimes in some parts of east Germany, particularly those parts with a large underclass, where we see a higher tendency of violent crimes against migrants and refugees. But no one would get the idea to talk here about a radicalisation of the German population and to make this a 'German thing'. No German would agree with that.

Simply put, a lot of frustrated people, are more susceptible to committing crimes. Which is hardly a surprise.

However indiscrimination, xenobobia and emotionality have prevented a nuanced debate, such as these matters require. And no one of us here is an expert in any of those fields. I am a second generation migrant in Germany, and I have grown up with a lot of friends who are as well. And none of those was more prone to violence or crime then any of the Germans I know and grew up with. My own experience tells me, that when people are frustrated, poor and uneducated, they tend to do a lot of shit. And this counts for anyone equally. What ever if they are Germans, Yugoslavian, Polish or Turkish - the groups I had the most contacts with.

One thing is clear, as far as Germany goes, it is definetly not trough the roof. I am not saying that this is your intention, but a lot of populists here use this kind of practise to paint an image that is not supported by any data. Beacuse there simply are none. Those second generation immigrants, are German citizens in any legal sense.

Edit
*By the way, since you posted something from Wikpedia:

Spoiler: Immigration and Crime - Germany

A report released by the German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation in November 2015 found that over the period January–September 2015, the crime rate of refugees was the same as that of native Germans.[57] According to Deutsche Welle, the report "concluded that the majority of crimes committed by refugees (67 percent) consisted of theft, robbery and fraud. Sex crimes made for less than 1 percent of all crimes committed by refugees, while homicide registered the smallest fraction at 0,1 percent."[57] According to the conservative newspaper Die Welt's description of the report, the most common crime committed by refugees was not paying fares on public transportation.[58] According to Deutsche Welle's reporting in February 2016 of a report by the German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation, the number of crimes committed by refugees did not rise in proportion to the number of refugees between 2014-2015.[59] According to Deutsche Welle, "between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees increased by 79 percent. Over the same period, however, the number of refugees in Germany increased by 440 percent."[59]

In May 2016, Politifact deemed Donald Trump's statement that "Germany "is crime-riddled right now" because of migration to Europe" as mostly false.[60] The fact-checker noted that Germany's crime rate, particularly the violent crime rate, is far lower than in the United States, and that data suggest that the crime rate of the average refugee is lower than that of the average German.[60]

Researchers at the Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute found in 2015 that the German government's policy of immigration of more than 3 million people of German descent to Germany after the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a significant increase in crime.[10] The effects were strongest in regions with high unemployment, high preexisting crime levels or large shares of foreigners.[10]

DW reported in 2006 that in Berlin, young male immigrants are three times more likely to commit violent crimes than their German peers.[61] Whereas the Gastarbeiter in the 50s and 60s did not have an elevated crime rate, second- and third-generation of immigrants had significantly higher crime rates.

I am not sure where you're getting this 'trough the roof' from.

And one of their sources, is also not available anymore:
https://www.rsf.uni-greifswald.de/fileadmin/mediapool/lehrstuehle/harrendorf/Germany_youngMig.pdf

But don't you find it ironic that someone is allowed to walk onto your property and steal everything you've worked your entire life for and you can't do anything about it as long as he doesn't threaten to harm you?

Now you're creating a hyperbole, I agree that there is an issue here and I am sure those cases exist. But let us not assume like this kind of situation would be common everywhere or like criminals are somehow treated like guests. It's not the standard.

You can call this view of mine naive I won't take that as an offense, but yes, I think the life of someone is more valuable then the computer or TV he's stealing from me.

Zimmerman should not have followed Trayvon around. That was a lapse in judgement. But Zimmerman was neighborhood watch and there had been lots of burglaries in that area.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. Fact is Trayvon is dead. And it was a very questionable situation. And I don't want this kind of mal-cop-ninja culture in Germany. Because the usual citizens neither has the education nor the expertise to act like the police authority or even on their behalf. And you can't get those with years of shooting on the shooting range either. It takes more then gun handling and accuracy. You wouldn't make someone a professional surgeon either, just because he is very accomplished with a knive.

“Medical Science, and schooling? The fuck do I need that for! Trust me. I can slice a spiders butt with my knive skills!”

How are you supposed to debate something if one side is not allowed to deny it? Hah!

I think this is a good answer:

Because they (German authorities) have decided that the right to free-speech must be balanced against the right not to be subjected to racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and a potential revival of Nazism.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-holocaust-denial-a-crime-in-some-countries
(...)
I am a German historian and although the Holocaust has not been my central field of research I have spent quite some time in Amsterdam’s war archive to get a clearer picture of the Nazi efforts to seize Jewish property in the printing business after the invasion of the Netherlands. (I had to do this research in 2000/2001 in order to determine to which extent Bertelsmann, the German publisher, had profited from the “Arisierung” of the Netherlands).

First thing: The Holocaust was bloody real. It was a machinery operating all over Europe - sending people from freshly occupied countries to the gas chambers of Poland and seizing their wealth. There is no way these documents could have been forged. They are massive and beyond challenge in their sheer volume and internal complexity. You’d need huge computers to compose an archival situation like. You would need a massive global conspiracy to fake biographies, personal memories, and the terrifying and partly macabre remains of all this.

Anyone who tells you it is “not real” (because he has found something to support his doubt) is manipulating you with a political agenda.

Now, we do have similar phenomena of denial in other fields - Flat Earthers who tell you that the planet is not a globe, Creationists who tell you that Earth has been created only 6000 years ago… all this is relative fun. These people will tell you that science is lying and that NASA is cheating you with manipulated photographs of the globe - all this is fun because it discredits people who can shake their heads about all this nonsense. It is disturbing where it manipulates children - but even that is not necessarily of any consequence.

Holocaust denial is different. It is telling you that all the historical victims are actually cheating the public. It denies families the right to mourn the loss of grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones. It is an attempt to deny Jews the right to remember their collective history - and usually the right to have a Jewish state as a consequence of this, their history.

All the Holocaust denier has to do is claim his right of free speech and tell the Jew, who has lost his family, that he is simply a liar. That is the point where we as societies must intervene and I will tell you why this is in your own interest:

If you lose you parents in a traffic accident and if anyone appears and tells you and your social environment that you are making this up - you will demand the same protection, a protection against defamation, your personal protection against this defamation of your character who sadly knows what has happened. I would say: This is your right. You must be able to silence anyone who claims that you are forging your family history, especially if you have lost your family under terrible circumstances. It is unfair if anyone discredits you personally with the simple claim that you are lying. It is even more unfair if he discredits you personally with a motif to discredit “the rest” of your nation and your wider cultural background. You must not become a personal target in a political vendetta - this is a protection you can demand as a human being and I’d say: we should be ready to protect you against any such slander in any future in which you will no longer be able to defend your personal knowledge of the truth.

Again, there has been, in Germany always solely one and only one type of group that denied the Holocaust alltogether:

Spoiler: Context matters