PDA

View Full Version : Dutch Mall Massacre lesson


Paladin
04-10-2011, 7:27 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110409/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_mall_shooting

As is typical, the shooter goes to a "virtual" gun-free zone where he can kill a bunch of unarmed men, women, and children.

From the linked article:

A man armed with a machine gun opened fire in a crowded shopping mall on Saturday, killing six people and wounding 15, then committed suicide, officials and witnesses said. . . .

Police commissioner Jan Stikvoort denied reports police were slow to respond, saying they arrived while the shooting was ongoing and reached the gunman just as the shooting stopped.

Translation: as is typical, once the coward realizes there's a GG w/a gun coming after him, he commits suicide. Another example of the dangers of "gun-free zones" and the lack of CCWers (GGs w/guns).

goodlookin1
04-10-2011, 8:15 AM
Yep, if the gun laws were more friendly, you might have been able to add this to your signature "CCW saving lives" thread. Too bad.

misterjake
04-10-2011, 12:09 PM
But to an anti's way of thinking, if guns were banned, he never would have picked up the gun in the 1st place.

They'll ignore any logic and this thought will be burned in their brain.

Nevermind the fact that murder is illegal yet he still committed it, no law will ever stop the lawless.

Paladin
04-10-2011, 12:51 PM
Yep, if the gun laws were more friendly, you might have been able to add this to your signature "CCW saving lives" thread. Too bad.Actually, I can't add any more. I reached the limit for that single post about 6 months ago.

But I may drop off some of the old ones that don't have citations and/or ones involving off-duty LEOs (what I call "virtual CCWers"), to make room for new, true CCW examples w/citations.

I can't wait until we start getting a bunch of examples of CCWers in CA . . . .

choprzrul
04-10-2011, 1:30 PM
just have a moderator add another post below the full one.

lomalinda
04-10-2011, 2:31 PM
We need to hammer the anti's with statistics showing the increase in home invasions, knifings, and the unabated gun violence taking place in countries such as England that have banned civilian ownership of firearms.

GettoPhilosopher
04-10-2011, 2:54 PM
But to an anti's way of thinking, if guns were banned, he never would have picked up the gun in the 1st place.


I wish more people would explore this logic.

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Problem being:
A) The 2A, Heller, McDonald, etc, mean that this can never happen.
B) There are just too many guns in circulation for it to work. 75 years is a rather light estimate.
C) It wouldn't change a thing now.

Same would go for an AW ban. If you completely banned possession or manufacture of anything that isn't a bolt action rifle, eventually it'd be very hard to find anything that isn't a bolt action rifle. It's also legally impossible.

In an odd way, that's one of the biggest arguments against gun control in my mind. If you completely ignore the "should we?" arguments, you get to the cold, logical fact that the Constitution prevents anything close to effective gun control. It just isn't possible, so it's not worth discussing or pursuing.

(this doesn't include the debate over so-called "reasonable restrictions", such as 10day waits, background checks, etc)

GDM
04-10-2011, 3:39 PM
I wish more people would explore this logic.

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Problem being:
A) The 2A, Heller, McDonald, etc, mean that this can never happen.
B) There are just too many guns in circulation for it to work. 75 years is a rather light estimate.
C) It wouldn't change a thing now.

Same would go for an AW ban. If you completely banned possession or manufacture of anything that isn't a bolt action rifle, eventually it'd be very hard to find anything that isn't a bolt action rifle. It's also legally impossible.

In an odd way, that's one of the biggest arguments against gun control in my mind. If you completely ignore the "should we?" arguments, you get to the cold, logical fact that the Constitution prevents anything close to effective gun control. It just isn't possible, so it's not worth discussing or pursuing.

(this doesn't include the debate over so-called "reasonable restrictions", such as 10day waits, background checks, etc)


Gun bans don't take into account peoples knowledge. What are they going to do with all those books published for gun-smithing, videos on the net, people with piratical, general knowledge of gun-smithing (or some one in their garage). Sure, you can ban milsurp / commercial guns. But what about Joe Smoe who just reproduced an AK.

If someone knows how to make a weapon from raw materials they will, then you lead to (gasp) thought control.

CalBear
04-10-2011, 3:48 PM
Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.
I've thought about this before as well. IMO, gun bans are predicated around 2 ideas: 1) banning guns will reduce the availability of guns for bad people and 2) reducing the availability of guns reduces crime.

I question both of these presumptions. I think black markets have always been extremely pervasive globally. I think something so common as a firearm will always be available at the right price. We've banned most illicit drugs, and we've waged a ridiculously expensive war against them, and yet they're available everywhere. Also, does anyone really think governments are going to give up the advantage they gain over civilians with firearms? Or the use of guns in military forces? It's just not going to happen.

Regarding the second assumption, I think this is where the most offensive fallacy lies. Some say if we could eliminate literally every gun from the Earth today, it would be a better world tomorrow. I seriously question this assertion. Guns are hardly the most common tool for killing over the history of the world, and even today, a tool as simple as a machete still reigns supreme.

Centuries ago, it was far easier for bandits and outlaws to terrorize innocent people with brute strength, armor, swords, simple shanks, etc. Without an equalizer like a gun, weak people have absolutely NO way of defending themselves against stronger attackers. If an attacker entered a woman's home at night, she would have to submit to rape, mayhem, murder and robbery. Now, a 6'5 attacker might easily lose a battle with an armed 5'3 elderly woman. So to me, the utopian vision of a gun free world being free of violence is bogus. The same people who are violent with guns would be violent without them, and there would be nothing to stop them.

nick
04-10-2011, 3:53 PM
Gun bans don't take into account peoples knowledge. What are they going to do with all those books published for gun-smithing, videos on the net, people with piratical, general knowledge of gun-smithing (or some one in their garage). Sure, you can ban milsurp / commercial guns. But what about Joe Smoe who just reproduced an AK.

If someone knows how to make a weapon from raw materials they will, then you lead to (gasp) thought control.

They also don't take into account all the guns worldwide. Moreover, this assumes that the availability of guns is the cause of violence, however, people have been killing each other in droves way before firearms were invented, and still do where guns are banned. Last I checked, people were killing each other in PRISONS! The only difference was that at the time before firearms the weaker humans didn't have much of a chance (unless they got a hold of a crossbow and those were expensive. Using a bow required a lot of practice), which they do have with firearms.

I talked to my ex-girlfriend today, one of the first things she said was, "looks like barrel shrouds are legal in Holland" :)

advocatusdiaboli
04-10-2011, 3:55 PM
But to an anti's way of thinking, if guns were banned, he never would have picked up the gun in the 1st place.

They'll ignore any logic and this thought will be burned in their brain.

Nevermind the fact that murder is illegal yet he still committed it, no law will ever stop the lawless.

Yep. They forget that Mexico, in at least one way, has more restrictive laws than the US—they prohibit the private ownership of powerful calibers that the military uses. Imagine if 5.56, 7.62, .38, 9mm, .40 S&W, .357, and .45 were illegal here. You, and of course the law-abiding cartels and other criminals there, would legally have access to .22 .25 .32, and .380. The cartels sure do a lot of killing with those "low power" cartridges. I'd sure feel safer down there than here knowing that all laws are obeyed by all and effectively enforced universally. And because of laws and everyone's respect for them, no criminal can access those powerful cartridges. Imagine how safe we'd be here if we banned them to. :rolleyes:

tiki
04-10-2011, 4:14 PM
<snip>

Paladin
04-10-2011, 5:47 PM
just have a moderator add another post below the full one.Thanks! I'll put in a request.

Paladin
04-10-2011, 5:51 PM
I wish more people would explore this logic.

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Another problem that I see that you did not list is that I do NOT want the government (military & police) to be the only ones w/guns. In my eyes, there's not much difference between a police state and a tyranny. After a "benevolent dictator" dies, what's to keep a malevolent dictator from arising? The more power that a government has, the more ambitious and ruthless men will strive to gain power.

JDoe
04-10-2011, 10:13 PM
...Translation: as is typical, once the coward realizes there's a GG w/a gun coming after him, he commits suicide...

Grossman in his book "On Killing", Chapter Two, Applications of the Model: Murder-Suicides, Lost Elections, and Thoughts of Insanity suggests an alternate reason that so many of these dirt bags commit suicide.

...an individual who kills several victims in a spree of violent passion, may very well be fixated in the exhilaration stage of killing. But once there is a lull, and the murderer has a chance to dwell on what he has done, the revulsion stage sets in with such intensity that suicide is a very common response.

jonnyt16
04-10-2011, 11:30 PM
Wait, you mean gun-free zones don't work?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA&feature=related

nicki
04-11-2011, 1:28 AM
Another tragic shooting, let's see who we can blame, after all, the guy committed suicide, so we can extract justice from him.

Gee, the guy does a mass shooting with a "MACHINE GUN", I wonder which gunshop he bought it at?

Comment in article says Dutch Police recover guns from drug busts?
Gee, maybe drug dealers are now also gun dealers too.

I guess Govt policies do actually stimulate some businesses.:rolleyes:

Nicki

Mesa Tactical
04-11-2011, 7:23 AM
Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Yeah? How long have marijuana and cocaine been illegal to possess in this country?

ubet
04-11-2011, 7:58 AM
I wish more people would explore this logic.

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Problem being:
A) The 2A, Heller, McDonald, etc, mean that this can never happen.
B) There are just too many guns in circulation for it to work. 75 years is a rather light estimate.
C) It wouldn't change a thing now.

Same would go for an AW ban. If you completely banned possession or manufacture of anything that isn't a bolt action rifle, eventually it'd be very hard to find anything that isn't a bolt action rifle. It's also legally impossible.

In an odd way, that's one of the biggest arguments against gun control in my mind. If you completely ignore the "should we?" arguments, you get to the cold, logical fact that the Constitution prevents anything close to effective gun control. It just isn't possible, so it's not worth discussing or pursuing.

(this doesn't include the debate over so-called "reasonable restrictions", such as 10day waits, background checks, etc)

Of all the posts I have read, THIS has to win the stupidity award.

So NO ONE has ever been killed by zip guns? No one has ever manufactured a rifle from raw parts? I fear an assilant with a knife and training, more than I fear a dimwit with a pistol who never shoots it. So, are you going to ban knives too? How about bats, baseball bats can be vary deadly, lets ban them too. Maybe hammers, pens, sticks, rocks, ropes, CARS, axes, beer bottles, heavy flashlights, and that is just looking around my front room, that I could use as weapons.

You dont strengthen people by taking away their leverage, "rise and rise again, until lambs become lions," the newest Robin Hood.

Wherryj
04-11-2011, 8:31 AM
Another problem that I see that you did not list is that I do NOT want the government (military & police) to be the only ones w/guns. In my eyes, there's not much difference between a police state and a tyranny. After a "benevolent dictator" dies, what's to keep a malevolent dictator from arising? The more power that a government has, the more ambitious and ruthless men will strive to gain power.

Has there ever been such a thing as a "benevolent dictator"? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Nachoman
04-11-2011, 8:32 AM
Of all the posts I have read, THIS has to win the stupidity award.

So NO ONE has ever been killed by zip guns? No one has ever manufactured a rifle from raw parts? I fear an assilant with a knife and training, more than I fear a dimwit with a pistol who never shoots it. So, are you going to ban knives too? How about bats, baseball bats can be vary deadly, lets ban them too. Maybe hammers, pens, sticks, rocks, ropes, CARS, axes, beer bottles, heavy flashlights, and that is just looking around my front room, that I could use as weapons.

You dont strengthen people by taking away their leverage, "rise and rise again, until lambs become lions," the newest Robin Hood.

Agreed, personally I think the term "gun-control" should be replaced with "weapon-control". If you have a gun violence problem, you ban guns... then you end up with a knife violence problem, so you ban knives... then you have a baseball bat violence problem, so you ban bats... etc. The problem with weapon-control laws is that they assume violence occurs in a vacuum, if someone doesn't have access to a gun then they won't commit the crime. when in fact if someone wants to to harm someone, they'll find a way to do it no matter what weapon is available.

CalBear
04-11-2011, 8:43 AM
Agreed, personally I think the term "gun-control" should be replaced with "weapon-control". If you have a gun violence problem, you ban guns... then you end up with a knife violence problem, so you ban knives... then you have a baseball bat violence problem, so you ban bats... etc. The problem with weapon-control laws is that they assume violence occurs in a vacuum, if someone doesn't have access to a gun then they won't commit the crime. when in fact if someone wants to to harm someone, they'll find a way to do it no matter what weapon is available.
And don't forget bare hands can be a weapon. A strong attacker could overpower and rape 90% of women out there. Guns level the playing field.

J.D.Allen
04-11-2011, 9:07 AM
I've thought about this before as well. IMO, gun bans are predicated around 2 ideas: 1) banning guns will reduce the availability of guns for bad people and 2) reducing the availability of guns reduces crime.

I question both of these presumptions. I think black markets have always been extremely pervasive globally. I think something so common as a firearm will always be available at the right price. We've banned most illicit drugs, and we've waged a ridiculously expensive war against them, and yet they're available everywhere. Also, does anyone really think governments are going to give up the advantage they gain over civilians with firearms? Or the use of guns in military forces? It's just not going to happen.

Regarding the second assumption, I think this is where the most offensive fallacy lies. Some say if we could eliminate literally every gun from the Earth today, it would be a better world tomorrow. I seriously question this assertion. Guns are hardly the most common tool for killing over the history of the world, and even today, a tool as simple as a machete still reigns supreme.

Centuries ago, it was far easier for bandits and outlaws to terrorize innocent people with brute strength, armor, swords, simple shanks, etc. Without an equalizer like a gun, weak people have absolutely NO way of defending themselves against stronger attackers. If an attacker entered a woman's home at night, she would have to submit to rape, mayhem, murder and robbery. Now, a 6'5 attacker might easily lose a battle with an armed 5'3 elderly woman. So to me, the utopian vision of a gun free world being free of violence is bogus. The same people who are violent with guns would be violent without them, and there would be nothing to stop them.

This +1000

Guns are a GOOD thing. Not bad, GOOD. How else is that young lady supposed to defend herself or her children against even one, let alone two or three 200 pound thugs, even if they're completely unarmed?

I remember a story in the San Diego UT a few years back in which an eighty something year old lady who lived alone, confronted a nineteen year old male meth addict who had broken into her apartment looking to steal things to buy his drugs. She held him at gunpoint with a .22 revolver and made him call the police to come get him. He was unarmed, but without that gun she would have had absolutely zero chance against that guy. As would I against three or four muscle bound thugs unless I had a gun.

We need to change our thinking and that of the culture: guns do NOT make crime possible. Guns make DEFENSE from criminals possible.

Mesa Tactical
04-11-2011, 10:52 AM
Agreed, personally I think the term "gun-control" should be replaced with "weapon-control". If you have a gun violence problem, you ban guns... then you end up with a knife violence problem,

No, you just end up with an illegal gun violence problem.

Gun bans in places like Mexico have not led to a knife violence problem.

Mimi_T
04-11-2011, 3:03 PM
Even if gun bans ran for years and years, it would not stop the influx of illegal guns, so it would be completely unable to stop the gun violence.
It would reduce to a certain point some of the access to guns that the average small fry criminal has, but as a whole the dangerous criminals would still have easy access to guns. They have all the necessary contacts for it.

No country is able to truly close its borders. As long as people pour in through the borders so easily, so do illegal guns.

The usual nonsense of all the illegal guns going from the US to Mexico is BS, but it is true that there's a huge black market for cheap illegal guns all over the world.

As long as there are wars, impoverished countries, and guns coming in and out of warzones, there will be guns available to the criminal world, regardless of any feel-good laws and other such nonsense. It's very easy for those people to move such things across borders, especially the large cartels.

Since when did criminals care about laws anyway? If they're going to rob a bank, will they care whether they're doing it with an illegal weapon or not...?


The 'feel good' laws only stop law abiding citizens from defending themselves, not the criminals that would have guns regardless of the law.

DarthSean
04-11-2011, 7:08 PM
You know this happened because Holland allows gun shows where anyone can buy a machine gun with no questions asked. Maybe Bloomberg will start grandstanding with private investigators and hidden cameras there.
[/sarcasm]

dixieD
04-11-2011, 8:15 PM
I wish more people would explore this logic.

Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Problem being:
A) The 2A, Heller, McDonald, etc, mean that this can never happen.
B) There are just too many guns in circulation for it to work. 75 years is a rather light estimate.
C) It wouldn't change a thing now.

Same would go for an AW ban. If you completely banned possession or manufacture of anything that isn't a bolt action rifle, eventually it'd be very hard to find anything that isn't a bolt action rifle. It's also legally impossible.

In an odd way, that's one of the biggest arguments against gun control in my mind. If you completely ignore the "should we?" arguments, you get to the cold, logical fact that the Constitution prevents anything close to effective gun control. It just isn't possible, so it's not worth discussing or pursuing.

(this doesn't include the debate over so-called "reasonable restrictions", such as 10day waits, background checks, etc)

This is just a utopian dream.

Project Gun Walker shows that in absence of any other factors governments will distribute firearms that will eventually find their way into the hands of criminals.

nicki
04-12-2011, 1:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GettoPhilosopher
Technically, there *is* an argument for a complete ban EVENTUALLY lowering gun availability. There's just too many guns around right now, but *if* you completely banned firearms, and *if* that law ran for, say, 75 years, eventually you would have a country where it's much harder to find guns.

Yeah? How long have marijuana and cocaine been illegal to possess in this country?


One thing we have on this board are build parties. Let's say we were outlaws having built parties, what would stop us from putting the following features on guns we are making that have no record of their existence.

1. No serial numbers
2. Serial numbers of other guns already in existence
3. Selective or full auto only features.
4. Optional SMOOTH BORE barrels and casing catcher over ejection port to catch spent casings.
5. Sound suppressors
6. Short barrel rifle with folding stock
7. Way over 10 round mag capacity, Laughner Style.
8. Forward grip
9. Barrel Shroud, the thing that goes on the shoulder.
10. Grenade Launchers, you know like Tony Montano(Scarface).

Nicki