Why a family living in the middle of modern day Germany have 15 licensed weapons??? They were all under lock and key apart from one…
Because it doesn’t matter whether he’s got one or 17 weapons - if he’s going to kill someone he can only use one at a time. Having 2, a pistol and a rifle, helps a little, but the principle applies still.
The main issue is having automatic weapons. Try walking into a room of people with a bolt-action rifle and see how many people you can shoot before they get you. With an automatic weapon you can take out anyone who goes for you - the Kalashnikov has a 30-round magazine, and that’s typical.
The second problem here is ‘under lock and key’.
After jumping through loads of hoops (I lived in Germany for a while, all is done very efficiently & bureaucratically) and checking out the owner, plus having a nice locked unit, you then leave it open to access by anyone who finds out where the owner keeps his key.
It’s not difficult for any spotty 17-yr-old to find out where his Dad keeps the key and bingo, away he goes.
Besides which, anyone with access to money and a 7-day tour of Poland can get a Kalashnikov & ammunition pretty easily.
Sleep well.
Ian
You`ld be suprised how quick I can be with a bolt action rifle at least one round a second, would you take the chance?
Is this a legally enforcable time frame?
oooerrr… Is that Mr. or Mrs. Jet talking??? 
Kinda reminds me of the Gummers from the film Tremors (the well armed survivalist couple :D)
As opposed to stand there and let you shoot me & everybody else?
Mmmmm, that’s a tough question.
Nice to know you’d give me a chance though.
Ian
I think you may well have missed the point here…we all know it’s possible to go out and buy these thing but that’s very different from having large numbers of the things lying round the house. As for “under lock and key” well that was part of my point…ie pointless.
He used a 9mm pistol not a Kalashnikov or the like but that , frankly, is totally irrelevant as is how quickly somebody can operate a bolt action rifle…
There is no way to justify having these sort of weapons at home…
“There is no way to justify having these sort of weapons at home…”
That is a matter of opinion that needs to balance the interests of everyone.
IMO, having 17 guns is no more risky than one or 2 - if you have a look at this incident, the American incident and go back in time, the b*****ds have used only one or 2 guns - any more than that is a waste.
In this case, it seems as if only one gun was used (a 9mm semi-auto Beretta), so the number of guns held can’t be a safety issue can it?
So, what the real question is should guns be held at home?
If we look at deaths from legally held guns, yes there have been deaths. But look at the balance between the pleasure of gun ownership and the risks to others, and how being consistent elsewhere would affect us.
Take our bikes. Anyone who has a car and a bike has the bike for pleasure; indeed you could say anyone with a car licence rides a bike for pleasure. How many people are killed on bikes or by bikes? Let’s stop people using bikes for pleasure to save all those lives…Or lets say nothing above 125cc as that’s all you need for transport or the pleasure of riding - anything more is an invite to trouble & grief.
I’ll accept more limits on holding guns at home if you’ll agree to a bike limit of 125cc. Interested?
On a further practical level, if this teenager didn’t have access to a gun, who’s to say he wouldn’t becomes an arsonist, drive a car into a crowded bus queue, make a home-made bomb.
IMO, the fault here is that the system broke down - his Dad had a son suffering from depression at a difficult age yet did nothing extra to safeguard his guns and/or ammunition.
Not sure that the above reads easily, but I think it makes a point.
Anyway, I don’t have any guns at home (I’m excluding the one in my jeans), which is fortunate as I would have used them on at least one person [not here] by now.
Ian
People are , as far as I am aware , seldom murdered with a bike of any size being used as a murder weapon so your analogy is tenuous to say the least (in my opinion)
If you live in the UK you already have much stricter laws on gun holding.
As to the son doing this through" being depressed" I think you might let the investigating authorities about this as they seem to be at a loss as to why this tragedy happened.
Finally give me one good reason why a law abiding citizen would want to keep this many guns at home…Not at a club or a range but at home with family and kids all around… I can’t think of a single good reason…
Anway, I’m off out on my RPG as the sun is still shining:)
Mmm. I see this being a ding-dong argument here. I shall just say a few words and bow out gracefully.
I didn’t say that bikes had been used as weapons, I was talking about them as an example of saving lives per se whether accidental or deliberate.
Blinkered and intolerant thinking should be challenged. Some people may not believe it, but there are many people out there who gain a great deal of pleasure out of shooting and holding guns. If you exclude farmers who turn their shotgun on themselves & burglars, there are very few incidents in this country with legally held firearms - and this has been the case well before the rules were tightened up after Dunblaine (a bit ironic, as the Police’s failure to follow existing procedures left the b*****d with his guns) - it is the illegally held firearms that cause the problems.
The Govt shafted gun-owners with the new rules. Friends of mine received only about 25% of what their weapons were worth when they had to hand them in. The Govt was then surprised to find that many got ‘stolen’ and either disappeared or ended up on the black market…
But on the central point of the number of guns to be held, I don’t think there is any evidence anywhere that holding 20 is more dangerous than holding one or 2. After all, here he only used one semi-auto pistol to kill 15 people when he could have taken many more.
I suppose bikes are a bit like guns. They’re harmless in themselves, it’s the nutter with it that’s the problem…
Anyway, if anyone wants to come back at me on this, that’s fine, but please don’t wait for a reply. We can save further debate for the pub. Just remember that I am (or, at least, used to be) an explosives expert, I can make improvised devices and I can find out where you live.
Cheers,
Ian
Yep, because by the time it takes you to lean down from the clouds, we’ll all be off! :w00t:
On the first point…This was a legally held gun…
Second point…Holding 20 is just 20 times more unnecessary than holding 1.
Third point…I rest my case…:D:D;)
Whistler, I’ve got you marked. 
I’m off now to buy my completely legal substances…and do some cooking/mixing.
Including alcohol, which kills more people here than guns & bikes combined. Perhaps we should start a campaign to ban it, we could call ourselves Bikers Against Drinking - ‘BAD’ sounds good. Bikers Against Numerous Guns - ‘BANG’ - sounds even better.
Ian
One of us is only 5’ 6" remember;)
Of course, if we do form ‘BANG’ then we can form a gang called the 'gang BAN…oops stopped as I thought of something rude.
I’ve shot myself in the foot haven’t I? Oops again, horrible pun. Sorry.
Ian