# Germany's Columbine Repeated



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2009)

Horrible day for this small city in Germany. This is the second mass shooting by a student they've had in less than a decade. 


> *Teen gunman dead after killing 15 at German school*
> 
> By OLIVER SCHMALE, Associated Press Writer        Oliver Schmale, Associated Press Writer               24 mins ago
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_school_attackWINNENDEN, Germany  A 17-year-old gunman dressed in black opened fire at his former high school in southwestern Germany on Wednesday then fled in a hijacked car, killing at least 15 people before police shot him to death, state officials said.
> ...



Killing two more bystanders and managing to injure police before getting killed himself. This was one determined kid. 
It is hoped that they'll find out the reason behind the shooting and take steps to prevent further incidents by helping those who are likely to snap and carry out their own brand of slaughter.

Apparently raising the age of gun ownership doesn't help. From the 2002 tragedy... 


> Steinhaeuser, who had been expelled for forging a doctor's note, was a gun club member licensed to own weapons. The attack led Germany to raise the age for owning recreational firearms from 18 to 21.


If this is going to cause a change in gun-laws in Germany I can see that it may do the same elsewhere. 
More fodder for the anti-gun folks to get their way.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 11, 2009)

Sad story.  I'm not sure what the point of raising the age of gun ownership was, unless they had reason to believe that the attack in 2002 had something to do with the attacker being younger than 21.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Sad story.  I'm not sure what the point of raising the age of gun ownership was, unless they had reason to believe that the attack in 2002 had something to do with the attacker being younger than 21.


It probably was... but obviously it didn't make any difference. When I was a kid I still had access to the guns my father owned, so if I had "lost it" there wouldn't have been any obstacle for me to get my hands on weapons and ammo. 
A gun doesn't care how old the handler is.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 11, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> It probably was... but obviously it didn't make any difference.


 
Obviously.  So what do they do now?  Bump the age restriction up to 25?  Or set it back to 18 since the assumption it was based on has been proven false?


----------



## arnisador (Mar 11, 2009)

I just don't get it.


----------



## grydth (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm not sure if any of us fully get it. But we had better figure it out pdq because the gunmen definitely do get it - there are way too many similarities in these crime sprees. 

It seems these prospective mass killers are either in touch with each other or getting info from some central places. I suspect that abuse of the first amendment type rights may be the culprit far more than the second.... but that debate should wait while the mourning takes place.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2009)

If I did it right, a cell-phone camera got the killer just before he committed suicide... funny how originally they said the police killed him..
http://www.yahoo.com/s/1042260


----------



## Isuam (Mar 13, 2009)

Our gun-laws are very restrictive. But the father of that boy did not  obey them strictly enough, although his son was depressive and got psychiatric treatment (you should be aware of suicide then, of course no one expects his child to commit a massacre). 
You have to store weapons and munition in a very safe locker and make sure, that nobody -not even familiy members- know, how to open that locker.
But the father kept one of his pistols (without munition) in the parent's bedroom and the boy also knew the code he needed to open the combination lock of the weapon locker.
The strictest laws are useless, if people don't obey them.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Sad story. I'm not sure what the point of raising the age of gun ownership was, unless they had reason to believe that the attack in 2002 had something to do with the attacker being younger than 21.


 

The thing is that on here we can argue from a distance and from a dispassionate point of view. When legislation is enacted like this it tends to be a gut reaction to the horror they have just been through, they feel they have to do something rather than nothing.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 13, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The thing is that on here we can argue from a distance and from a dispassionate point of view. When legislation is enacted like this it tends to be a gut reaction to the horror they have just been through, they feel they have to do something rather than nothing.


 
Yes, I understand that.  We have a lot of "let's do something, anything" going on here as well.  Seems to work just about as well as... well, this.  I like to have solutions that actually fix the problem.  I'm weird like that.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Yes, I understand that. We have a lot of "let's do something, anything" going on here as well. Seems to work just about as well as... well, this. I like to have solutions that actually fix the problem. I'm weird like that.


 
 I know what you mean but at the time what are they to do? Asking everyone to be cool, calm and collected when their children have been killed seems harsh so the authorities try to do something. In truth there's little anyone can do but how do you say that to the parents and relatives. it's a very difficult situation. I doubt actually that while the law dictates an age limit does any good, it won't do any harm either. there's an age limit on a lot of things, I believe 21 is a common age in the States for legal drinking so I guess being allowed to *own* guns at 21 isn't too restrictive.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I doubt actually that while the law dictates an age limit does any good, it won't do any harm either. there's an age limit on a lot of things, I believe 21 is a common age in the States for legal drinking so I guess being allowed to *own* guns at 21 isn't too restrictive.


 
I agree.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the U.S. government can take your 18 year old and press him/her into military service if they feel the need to, or that he/she can do so as a volunteer, can be trained with and expected to be mature enough to use Military Full and Select Fire Automatic weapons, high explosives, chemical grenades, Tanks, Cannons, Mortars, Anti-tank rockets, etc... 

But not reasonable to have them drink or own a .22 sporting rifle.  

*rolls eyes*


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> I agree. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the U.S. government can take your 18 year old and press him/her into military service if they feel the need to, or that he/she can do so as a volunteer, can be trained with and expected to be mature enough to use Military Full and Select Fire Automatic weapons, high explosives, chemical grenades, Tanks, Cannons, Mortars, Anti-tank rockets, etc...
> 
> But not reasonable to have them drink or own a .22 sporting rifle.
> 
> *rolls eyes*


 
Yeah but military weapons are kept in armouries not in the house and they've been selected and trained to use weapons. The weapons are also used under the command of a senior, they don't let 18 year olds ( or any other age for that matter) run loose with weapons. They are told when to shoot and what at, they're not expected to be mature, they're expected to do as they are told! They will also be charged and discplined for negligent discharges, they get supervised more over all activities than 18 year old civilians!


----------

