No word on whether this attack was sponsored by the religion of peace or some right wing, American, wackos, who happened to make their way into Germany, armed to the teeth in the name of baby Jesus.
The shooting took place in Viernheim, Germany and is ongoing. There appears to be a hostage situation.
BREAKING: At least 25 wounded in shooting at a cinema in Germany, German public TV says https://t.co/NcN1h0b8wW https://t.co/J55BHzMERJ
— CNN (@CNN) June 23, 2016
UPDATE: There are reports that the man has been arrested.
UPDATE: the masked man is dead. Back to your regularly scheduled market rally.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Shocked, mourn, move on, becoming the norm.
Shoot back.
Gun free zones. We need more of them.
This was obviously the gun’s fault. Who leaves a gun unattended these days? Very irresponsible. And to be caught wearing a ski mask whilst your gun fires upon innocents. How embarrassing.
Funny that the left loves to blame the gun but is dead silent on the robot-takeover of vast swaths of the labor market.
Here’s my problem with gun owners. They want the freedom but not the responsibility. They argue that if we take the guns away then only criminals will have guns. But where do criminals get guns? They steal them or buy stolen guns from “honest” gun owners. How about this.. if a stolen gun is used to injure or kill someone then the gun owner is liable unless he can demonstrate that he took appropriate action to secure it in a gun safe etc. Further gun owners should be required to have liability insurance like we do for cars.
How about you read the second amendment or move out of the country?
“if a stolen gun is used to injure or kill someone then the gun owner is liable unless he can demonstrate that he took appropriate action to secure it in a gun safe etc. ”
That’s actually already the case in courts if the family sues and it’s already the case if the gun owner doesn’t report it stolen or missing.
Also, guns are or could be smuggled from across the border as well as from dirty cops and dirty government officials and corrupt gunmakers who sell them on the black market
fast and furious. read up on it. obama administration GAVE bad guys some guns so they could kill people.
knifes, cars, and ladders kill far more people each year. So if we’re trying to argue that the government has the moral authority to reduce death by restricting free will, we should start there, no?
Your first name is Ass, no?
And, no, knives and ladders don’t kill anything like 30,000 people a year in the US.
Let me ask you a question…
Suppose the government successfully confiscated every gun in the public’s hand, even those held by criminals.
Then suppose that you are at home with your entire family sleeping at 3am. You hear a door get kicked in and a bunch of loud footsteps heading up the stairs towards the bedrooms.
You see in the darkness several masked men with baseball bats screaming at you and your family to get out of your rooms and head down to the basement.
At that moment, would you be better off with a gun in your hand or your limp dick?
Despite the fact that your number of over 30,000 includes suicides which make up over 20,000 of those numbers, and the fact that many of the homicides if you banned all guns AND were successful in confiscating all of them (unlikely), that many of those would be gun murders would take place by another weapon….
YES, 30,208 people died in the US by falling accidents.
We have to ban all heights and destroy all buildings over 2 stories tall!
yes, the victims exercised their free will to be shot.
I’m sure the falling victims exercised their free will to fall accidentally too. If the goal is to prevent death, why not ban walking on roofs, cleaning windows outside of buildings, and drinking as well?
That is so fuckin’ stupid even NRA members are embarrassed. So..there’s no difference between an accidental death resulting from falling off a ladder and one resulting from a guy randomly shooting people.
Sure you don’t want to rethink that one?
Okay. I concede it’s not a good comparison.
The majority of gun deaths are suicides. 2/3rds of them. The majority of deaths by height (falling or jumping) are accidents.
Height is far more likely to kill someone as an unintended hazard, where as guns are more likely to be used as a tool to commit suicide.
So the free will of the gun user is far more responsible and less hazardous as measured by intent.
My question remains…
If your goal is unwanted deaths to prevent victims, why not focus on prohibiting alcohol, prohibiting people exposing themselves to risks of height, and prohibiting themselves to being exposed to risks of vehicle collisions?
Wow…
Will this event tip the decision for UK voters on the fence?
The government is never going to take all guns away.
Bit 90 percent of Americans do want mandatory background checks, that close loopholes, for all gun purchases.
Here is politifact’s fact checking of this statement and finding it to be true.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/05/jeremy-bird/jeremy-bird-says-90-percent-americans-want-mandato/
Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen to ignore the will of the people, in favor of carrying out the will of the NRA.
Vast majorities of Americans from all parties backing restrictions that would prevent individuals on terror watch lists from buying guns, but Congress just ignored that, too. Specifically, the Republicans in Congress are the ones blocking this.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/
This is what Big NRA Money in politics does. And Big Money also propagandizes people to vote for the politicians who do the opposite of the people’s will. So they can keep doing the opposite of the people’s will, term after term.
People swallow the propaganda, vote for these NRA servant Congress members, and then bash the government they elected.
Even people on terror watch lists are allowed to buy guns, against the will of the people. Insane. And undemocratic.
I agree with background checks, and I think mental health checks should be done as well.
I’m not completely decided on the issue and could probably be convinced otherwise, but If you aren’t under trial or investigation as a suspect I am a little hesitant to say the unelected beurocrats can go all “patriot act” on you with no oversight and restrict your rights, whether that means indefinite detention or prohibited rights to purchase a firearm. It’s not as if removing firearms from a terrorist would prevent anyone from causing mass tragedy as we saw with the Boston bombing.
I think you could argue either side since there isn’t data, so it’s be interesting to see what a member of the FBI would say, but I think if you have someone on a watchlist who has purchased a gun or works in security that you would be more aware that he’s a more immediate threat then someone who bought a pressure cooker and household items. I could be wrong on this though as 38% of households have a guns I a gun purchase by someone on the watchlist could be a “non event” and not tip authorities off to being more prepared to respond.
As for the loophole argument, there isn’t much substance there. The gun show loophole is a myth as gun shows are not exempt from federal laws. Buying a gun on the internet requires a licensed dealer to approve you through all the normal background checks, and it’s illegal to sell a gun as a private citizen to another, unless specifically allowed by state laws from state to state sales. I am all for people lobbying their individual states and local communities to abide by a set of laws consistent with their personal ideology.
For those like Frog who actually care about facts and empyrical evidence…
While nations and states with more guns is slightly positively correlated with gun related deaths, there’s almost no correlation between gun related homicides (excluding suicides and accidents), and it’s negatively correlated with total homicides (including all weapons)
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
This tends to imply that potentially armed citizens in a populous, do in fact seem to be a successful deterrent from violent robberies and murders at the cost of more suicides.
Thus, I tend to see gun control as a “deterrent from terrorism and murder” as a political talking point at best, not an actual solution, and it’s clearly supported by data.
If we want to prevent gun related suicides that’s a separate issue than the one perpetrated by the left and the media, and we can have that discussion, but it’s not the one we’re getting.
Oh, shit. Did you seriously cite the work of John Lott?
You may as well wave a white flag. The man has repeatedly been revealed as wholly dishonest, changing models and data and dates on a whim as needed to address criticisms of his work.
He is at home with the grifters who deny the harm of smoking cigarettes and deny the influence of human activity on the global climate.
From http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/
The punchline is in the comment after this one.
Of course, John Lott isn’t the only person who defends John Lott. Incessant criticism from internet sleuths left Lott without many supporters until one passionate blogger, Mary Rosh, assumed the unenviable position of defending Lott’s character.
Mary identified herself as a former student of Lott at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. She gushed profusely for her former professor, describing Lott as “the best professor I ever had.” She admiringly recalled that, “Lott taught me more about analysis than any other professor that I had and I was not alone. There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material.”
A rave Amazon review authored by Mary contained the subject line, “SAVE YOUR LIFE, READ THIS BOOK — GREAT BUY!!!!” She explained that “Unlike other studies, Lott used all the data that was available. He did not pick certain cities to include and others to exclude. No previous study had accounted for even a small fraction of the variables that he accounted for.”
Mary had clearly invested a great deal of time in the gun debate, defending Lott at every turn with extremely precise citations, often mentioning exact page numbers and table references in Lott’s work. Over time, Mary appeared almost pathologically obsessed with bolstering the reputation of Lott, insisting, for example, that various online communities artificially inflate the popularity of Lott’s work by downloading his publication
Mary Rosh was exposed as an internet sockpuppet of John Lott in 2003 by Julian Sanchez, one of Lott’s colleagues at the CATO institute. Sanchez compared the IP addresses from Mary Rosh’s forum posts with the IP address in an email that John Lott had sent Julian. On January 22, 2003, Mary Rush uttered her final words, confessing that John Lott and Mary Rosh were one in the same
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/
Sorry, gun control is a convenient political talking point after a tragedy to pretend one side has the solution… Yes, more guns equals more GUN murder, slightly less murder total. Overall correlation is weak. There is a much stronger link between poverty and murder.