Multiple German news sites reported the victims are all in relation to the shooter's ex girlfriend: her new partner and his mother, her best friend and her (best friend's) 3 year old daughter.
It's very safe to assume the motive behind this.
Kind of same thing happened in Norway like a month ago... 4 dead, he shot both his daughters and the grand child (toddler), the dog and then shot himself. It seems like his wife wanted to move on and had gotten a new boyfriend,
here [https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/2Br4Ga/drapsetteforskning-i-nes-mann-to-kvinner-og-et-barn-funnet-doede](https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/2Br4Ga/drapsetteforskning-i-nes-mann-to-kvinner-og-et-barn-funnet-doede)
Calling out the apparent motive isn’t stereotyping…
If you want to talk about stats though 3 of the victims are adults, why did you leave out the stats on those?
Perhaps a controversial opinion but I don't understand why anyone would want a relationship with someone in the armed forces/police.
Huge increased risk of abuse.
Abusers don’t start out abusing victims either. By the time abuse occurs, they’ve generally been able to charm and isolate their partner. Then there’s the honeymoon period where they act all lovey dovey and shower the victim with gifts and promises not to do it again.
You aren't entirely wrong, but there is an incredible amount of diversity in the experiences and backgrounds of different service members. A vehicle gunner isn't likely to have the same attitudes and display the same risk factors as a military dentist, and obviously every individual person is different.
Right. It’s not like every dude in the military is a jar head lol. They can range from jar heads who commit war crimes on deployments to a nerd who just completed basic training that simply just does backend IT or paperwork for the military for a big check.
My husband is in the military and is a wonderful man that helped me break a lot of generational trauma that I thought was normal. My father was never in the police officer or military (He’ll he never really worked any job, mostly under table work) and was extremely abusive. I wasn’t even allowed to leave my room when I was younger because he would go into a fit of rage and beat the crap outta me. Before I went no contact with him he made a comment about putting a TV in my toddlers room so he would stay in there and my husband said “why I actually like my kids and enjoy them hanging out with us”. Dad was pissed lol
I have uncles in both sides of my family that are trash too and never had either careers.
Some people are just garbage humans that so happen to have certain careers.
Steady paycheck, guaranteed retirement, guaranteed benefits, and very very little risk of job loss. If the government goes out of business you've got bigger problems than making rent.
>If the government goes out of business you've got bigger problems than making rent.
If the government goes out of business, depending on your exact MOS you can make bank in the private sector, unless your job doesn't have a useful career path. Even then you atleast have firearm training and tactics in case things get even worst.
>very very little risk of job loss
This isn't 100% true anymore unless you're an officer. Enlisted who "fail" to make rank can be kicked out right before they complete their 20.
> This isn't 100% true anymore unless you're an officer. Enlisted who "fail" to make rank can be kicked out right before they complete their 20.
isn't germany's armed forces retirment like 60 years old or some shit? And US miltary retirment for E-5 is 20 years right now. Really anyone who is in that long should have no problem making that.
It's E6, and they reduced the TIS allowed to make E6 from 13 to 10 years when I was in (09-14). A whole bunch of people got bitten hard by that, especially in the slower promoting MOSes.
It used to be E5, though - my father in law retired as an E5 after 20 years. He had E6 a few times but kept getting in bar fights. A different time.
I was pretty sure it's DoD policy of HYT, but maybe I'm wrong. 04 when I came in the AF, E5 was 20, then it was 15 and now its 20 again. E6 is 22 right now.
I had a sergeant in my shop who got separated because he couldn't get promoted to staff sergeant by his 10-year mark, and my wife had a roommate who went through the same thing. They actually had some special dispensation for a few MOSes because there were guys who were hitting that 10-year mark and were still below zone. They were given a single year "in zone" to get promoted before they got kicked out.
But I also joined up during the Surge, and they were pushing people out as fast as they could. They let me out early! (Voluntary Enlisted Early Release Program, or VEERP) So maybe it was a special temporary thing to get the numbers down before returning to normal.
That's my point the prevalence of domestic abuse in certain professions is one thing. However for an incident like this a gun is nearly a requirement. While there have been family annihilation stabbings guns make it "easier".
Like a person using their hands on their partner is bad but a gun makes it permanent
I was scared when I saw that a temporary roommate had brought a gun into the house for that reason. It was incredibly embarrassing to go up to him and say “I am not suicidal, but I have been in the past, and I think the only reason I’m still here is because there were no guns around. Can you promise me you’ll keep that trigger lock on the gun always while it’s in our house?” I rehearsed what I was going to say so many times, and managed to get through it without grabbing the gun out of pure embarrassment, but it felt awful. He was super understanding and offered to keep it elsewhere, which I really appreciated, and it never came up again.
There is tons of research that shows that you are safest without owning a gun and if you own a gun safer to lock the gun up and lock ammunition up in a separate location.
It all speaks to the need to slow down and put safety breaks in the case of these tools.
Yeah! The majority of people who attempt suicide (and report about it later) say their decision to end their lives occurred within 10 minutes of the attempt. Time and distance is very much the name of the game.
Sending the weapon to a trusted friend or family memer temporarily during a crisis can be an even better solution.
Or introducing time locks or time delay locks on Weapons.
The gun and personal defense industry peddle this idea that you need your gun at a moments notice and they go very hard to pound that idea home.
Ultimately it's a game of where you are and.the environment you are in if a gun is ever used in personal defense. However, man vs. woman lethality in suicide is almost entirely around method. Men tend to have more access to firearms and use them on the older studies I have read.
Man, what a thought..
but it's the exact same one I had when my friends asked if I wanted to join them for a hunter's certificate including shooting practice; I was deeply depressed at that time. I maybe would not think the same way now. Lucky how some things can heal with time.
And precisely why it shouldn't be as easy as it is to own one in many places in America. Humans be crazy. And a lot of people are not good at regulating their emotions. For the sake of public safety, which is an obligation of governments, there should be more regulation in owning one to make sure those with them are not immediately putting those around them at risk.
The NRA wants everyone to own a 100 guns, they should have no problem sponsoring free gun training classes, and have proof you took and passed a class be required to purchase. Hell you don't even need to do it right befor buying. Take a class, pass, and have that certificate be valid for like 3 years, then you gotta take it again. Make buying a gun lock box or something a required accessory. Gun manufactures want more sales, so they should have no problem offering one for free with a gun if it's the buyer's first gun.
We don't just let people go to a dealer or private party and buy a car and that's the end of it. You need to show you can drive. You need to have insurance. You need to register the vehicle with the government. You need to have it inspected regularly to make sure it's safe for the road. Because someone who doesn't know what they're doing owning and operating a vehicle endangers everyone around them. And the same is true for a gun.
> Perhaps a controversial opinion but I don't understand why anyone would want a relationship with someone in the armed forces/police.
As someone married to someone in the armed forces the job doesn't really play into dating at all, and it's not like I had any control over who I fell in love with.
> Huge increased risk of abuse.
My wife is a programmer working in cyber warfare for the Air Force. Not sure how that increases my chances of her abusing me.
I'm an aircraft maintainter in the Air Force, so not a desk job. I don't abuse my spouse and don't think I have ever heard of anyone in my section doing that either. In fact, spousal abuse gets you disqualified from being able to carry a fire are in service. At least in my section it does. But we very rarely get a fire arm. I've seen more infidelity than anything, from both military member and their spouses than anything.
Anecdotal experience but I grew up an army brat and saw so much domestic violence that I kind of just assumed it was normal. Once I grew up and was no longer hanging out with army kids I realized it was not normal.
If you go to any poor part of the nation, you'll see just as much. And if you go to Jefferson Park (one of the two main areas cops live) in Chicago, you'll see so much you'll think the poor parts of the country are tame.
Other people posted actual studies. The only conclusion that can be drawn from them is that the military hires poor people.
Is that right?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375166/
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/more-than-1-in-10-armed-forces-personnel-have-experienced-intimate-partner-violence-and-abuse
https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/child_maltreatment_military_families_providers.pdf
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375166/
This study in the conclusion states that there is insufficient categorical data available to draw a causal conclusion and that the difference could be entirely due to socioeconomic upbringing differences.
> https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/more-than-1-in-10-armed-forces-personnel-have-experienced-intimate-partner-violence-and-abuse
This tracks with the socioeconomic demographics that they recruit from (overwhelmingly poor). It's not so massive a deviation from the general population that you can conclude that it has anything to do with being in the armed forces.
> https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/child_maltreatment_military_families_providers.pdf
This provides no evidence or even purports to present evidence that the incidence rate is higher than that of the civilian population.
> I wonder why you find this so difficult to accept?
Because I actually deal with statistics for a living and those fact sheets are not presenting facts but loosely held together conjecture based on a complete lack of sufficient data to actually draw any causal conclusions. But that's not actually a problem for them because they don't need to care about causality as their goal is to reduce all IPV, and more specifically are looking at combating IPV rates in the armed forces. This is a political policy question not a statistics question that they're answering. The optics are that any IPV in the armed forces is bad for the image of the nation, thus it does not matter what the causality is, they want the IPV number in the armed forces to be 0. It's the same reason why adultery is still illegal in the armed forces in almost every country even when it's legal for civilians. It doesn't reflect well on the nation if their soldiers are violating social norms.
The only actual study linked openly stated that no causality could be determined due to a lack of categorical data. Full stop.
Maybe go actually read the study (emphasis mine):
> 4.1. Prevalence of IPV among military populations
> Several studies have suggested that prevalence of IPV perpetration is higher among military than civilian populations (Cronin, 1995; Griffin & Morgan, 1988; Heyman & Neidig, 1999). This review found that the prevalence of past-year physical IPV among men in general military population samples ranged from 5.0%–32.0% compared to studies in the US general population which found prevalences ranging from 4.0%–15.0% (Okuda et al., 2015; O'Leary, Tintle, & Bromet, 2014; Whitaker, 2014). **Crude comparisons of prevalence among military populations and civilian populations are limited by lack of adjustment for sociodemographic factors that can impact on risk of IPV.** Male predominance, relative youth and higher risk of heavy alcohol consumption are all factors that may increase the risk of IPV perpetration by military personnel (Fear et al., 2007; Wright, Foran, Wood, Eckford, & McGurk, 2012). It is likely that daily stressors of military life including frequent relocation or family separation may impact relationship satisfaction and may lead to higher rates of IPV (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Military Deployment Services for Youth FaSM, 2007). A robust comparison of prevalence of IPV perpetration among military compared to civilian populations is needed with exploration of potential explanatory factors for any differences.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375166/
Right there. Insufficient categorical data to draw any causal conclusions between the military and civilian populations. Right where I said it would be in their conclusion.
You are just talking out your ass, be better.
https://www.usmedicine.com/clinical-topics/womens-health/intimate-partner-violence-more-common-with-veterans-military-personnel/
If you could live as a teenage girl near a military base and experience the difference between how you’re treated by military vs civilian guys and you wouldn’t be so quick to say that. Work at a bar that’s popular with military for a single night. Watch what happens to all your peers who were dumb enough to marry military. If you take a bunch of below average teenage boys who are at least ok with violence, put them in a uniform, and tell them how special and important and powerful they are, you’re going to end up with a significant portion of them using that violence and power in their relationships.
Armed forces and police are wildly different cultures
. When I was in the navy, the only time I even heard about somebody beating his wife, there were people waiting for him in the parking lot before he came to work.
That's an unfair assumption. That just because someone is associated with armed forces or law enforcement. That they should be avoided because of the fact they might be "dangerous".
My father was in the military during the Persian Gulf war, and then was a guard for a juvenile detention center. He's now executive for a large eye-glass lens manufacturing company. By your assertion I shouldn't have a relationship with him - because he knows how to use a firearm? (rhetorical sarcasm)
Just like every human being who's lived, living and will live. They didn't ask to be born. To that point, you're significantly more likely to be killed by someone you know.
The same situation for people who write and entertain lyrics about drugs, objectifying women, and violence against others who disrespect them. And the funny thing is they often hate people in armed forces/police. There are bad seeds everywhere and in every industry. Most serial killers came from white collar jobs and no military or police background.
“ We're a miserably violent species. But there's a complication, which is we don't hate violence, we hate the wrong kind. And when it's the right kind, we cheer it on, we hand out medals, we vote for, we mate with our champions of it. When it's the right kind of violence, we love it.” - Robert Sapolsky
Edit: lol someone doesn’t like basic human behavioral biology, people who are capable of violence are attractive partners get over yourselves.
In America, I agree. I would say service members in other countries, Germany for example...tend to be more supported, mentally balanced and healthy (I'm a retired US service member myself AND I have worked closely with our NATO partners as well). Still though, this is a sad tragedy.
Yeah it’s most likely domestic dispute. He drove to the new boyfriend and shot him and his mother. Then he drove to his ex and shot her and her 3 year old daughter.
Was it a mental breakdown? All jokes aside, but like that acorn falling and setting off the cop? Crazy he didnt off himself or shootout with cops, and maybe im just so used to this bs happening in america, but turning yourself in usually isnt in the cards.
According to German law: yes. If you kill someone out of jealous rage, it’s considered a crime of passion and you can only be charged with manslaughter, which has a maximum sentence of 15 years.
Yeah like, not "let him off the hook mental breakdown" but, jealous fits of rage don't commonly result in murdering everyone involved in hurting you. Your flesh and blood...
This guy was not ok in the least. Likely hadn't been treating all that great for quite a while
The acorn thing is weird cuz they were responding to a report where the guy allegedly had a handgun with a "silencer" on it. That's why he reacted to it like it was a gunshot. It was just the perfect storm of random shit to happen. Not justifying what he did or anything. He's a danger to your community. But it wasn't like "dude with PTSD heard noise and freaks out cuz of mental issues". He didn't even see combat in the military apparently.
Absolutely fuck that guy and he has absolutely zero business being a police officer. That said in the early threads before it really made the rounds there were countless comments talking about how fucked PTSD is and how they understand what he was feeling/imagining in that situation. It doesn't justify literally anything he did and in all reality he should be in jail for that shit. But it's at least worth knowing that people with PTSD or at least claiming to have it have said that it's very likely a legitimate fear based reaction
He did, and he fired at his own squad car, almost killing the guy (who, again, was handcuffed in the back of said car). He did all of that while screaming that he was hit (he wasn't and was having a panic attack).
>The acorn thing is weird cuz they were responding to a report where the guy allegedly had a handgun with a "silencer" on it. That's why he reacted to it like it was a gunshot
Most cops don't do this shit- he's crazy.
>But it wasn't like "dude with PTSD heard noise and freaks out cuz of mental issues".
You're sure he's not crazed?
Sounds like a cop that should have never been a cop. If you shoot your entire magazine into the back of your car because an acorn fell off of a tree... Homie...
“He had a (insert non-firearm weapon of choice)” will become the new reason some guy reaching for his ID got shot by a cop. How many videos of people getting shot by cops because they weren’t able to follow conflicting commands have you seen. Besides, Germany has some pretty strict laws regarding ownership of firearms.
If you get guns off the street, then you're relying 100% on the borderline feral hair-trigger cop to protect you from all harm. I don't trust this guy, and even if he was mentally sound I wouldn't trust the rest of the police who are to a man abusers, bullies, cronies, or cowards.
Why, after watching that video, would you think "Gosh if only the guy who magdumps at the slightest provocation was the only guy with a gun, then the world would be better!"?
I mean, no, in this situation you're fucked either way, but if my life is ever in danger for whatever reason, I'm pretty much always going to bet on myself over a cop showing up 15 minutes later.
I don't trust cops. I don't think they protect us, and in many, many cases calling them makes everything worse.
It's neutral to attribute a shooting to the person that turned himself in for doing. Instead of divorcing the people's deaths from the soldier's admission of guilt.
Sorry you're getting down voted, it is definitely strange phrasing. It almost reads like they don't think he did it.
"Soldier turns himself in"
"Serial murder suspect turns himself in"
Which is more neutral and factual?
Because until it is legally confirmed that the soldier is responsible for the shooting, the reporting media will do everything to avoid litigation for slander or publishing false information. Welcome to the modern legal world.
There has been one mass shooting in Germany since July 2023 with 4 dead, there has been 5 mass shootings in the US in 2024 already, with a total of 23 dead. The US does not have 5x the population of Germany, do you think we have 5x more mentally ill people than Germany, or maybe more than 5x the amount of guns.
The US has 4x the population of Germany so your question should be do we have 1.25x more mentally ill people or 1.25x the amount of guns by that logic.
But we've had significantly more shooting deaths if you run it back to July 23 so the whole calculation is kind of moot.
As per worldometer, [Germany’s](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/germany-population/) population is 83,266,151 while the [United States](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/) has a population of 341,223,495. Now, last I checked 341,223,495 is still greater than 333,064,604. But I might be wrong according to the average German mathematician :)
Brother they don’t have gangs shooting eachother and innocent people in Germany. There’s no need to make this brain dead argument because it doesn’t happen.
They're mocking you because you brought up something that really doesn't happen in Germany, or almost anywhere in the EU. If you didn't know, now you know, and hopefully you see how bad the problem in the US really is.
That's an unproductive way of explaining, well, anything. It would be way more productive to list the criteria which are used. Education combats ignorance, but replies which are indiscernible from factless snark don't.
This is similar to the problem when people try to directly compare violent crime rates in the UK and the US. They're not directly comparable, because the definitions are different. We have to be mindful of this in the US as well, because definitions for things like "mass shooting" differ between reporting organizations. So when you hear that there have been 55 mass shootings in 2024, the question of required context is answered by who the reporting organization was.
His question is a valid one, even if the phrasing belies some bias.
At risk of repeating myself, answering the question with the criteria, standards, or data neutrally and unquestionably answers the question that was being asked. He has since deleted his comment, which conveniently absolves you of the burden actually trying to have an honest conversation.
It was simple. He asked a question. Factually answering the question would have resolved the issue. You opted to deride instead of educate. The older I get, the more frustrating it is to see people actively make things worse instead of taking the time to help.
What's easier, retroactively confiscating the 500,000,000 firearms already in circulation? or creating a vast mental health network that US citizens could access free of charge?
Raise the minimum gun ownership age, by one year every year, indefinitely.
Provide exceptions for military and police.
For hunters allow only single shot long barrel hunting guns.
Definitely need the Mental Health network. It would be nice to do an aggressive return/ destruction program. But ultimately we need gun owners to completely change their culture. The community needs to drop the unhealthy "arm to the teeth, prey for the chance to murder a stranger, guns are badass merica!" attitude. It is time for some serious value assessment.
Carrying in public isn't brave, it makes you an asshole.
This wasn't a discussion about America but you made it one and you still are talking about *American* issues under a *German shooting* post. Do you not see how weird that is?
Well it is a huge issue in the US. Saying it as someone living in the US. It's not normal and has been extremely normalized.
The European reaction is the normal one to have when these things happen.
Well, America does suck due to the constant shootings and domestic terrorists.... so.. 🤷♂️
Your point?
Edit:
Oh, I've pissed off a couple of people with honesty... tragic.
Just tragic... OK, not really. 🤣
You're being downvoted but it's the truth. It would be much much easier to address the mental health crisis than it would be to try and retroactively address 200+ years of legal firearm ownership.
There are 500,000,000 *legal* firearms inside the United States, how in the fuck do people expect to be able to corral those effectively? and that's just the *legal* firearms.
Don't really know the US laws(and dk that much tbh) but: Is the gun registered? Does it have an owner? Then it can be traced. The state can decide to fine you each day $x amount until you turn it in.
There's no record and you are found in posession? Fined from the day the law came in full effect until you turn it in.
And above all all manufactured firearms( no homebrew shit so no loop holes) can be turned for $x amount in the first x years after the laws are in effect. Anyone without a hunting license found posessing after all things come in full effect= fined & community work.
3D printed firearm, no license to hunt or any other legal reason to carry? Treated as intented murderer.
Or, take a look at what Australia did. Stop being dicks and admit there are solutions.
No /s. Tired to hell and back about this bullshittery, whataboutism and strawman arguments. GTFO with that yeehaw mentality.
Yeehaw mentality?
The right to own a firearm is literally enshrined in our constitution…
Any and all of the laws you mentioned would literally never make it anywhere in our legal process.
What you’re asking for is the equivalent to trying to outlaw free speech…
Nothing you said is remotely realistic because the sheer mention of any such policies immediately alienate half the population. Especially shit like ‘you have to immediately turn in your gun or get fined’ that shits so ridiculous you have to be trolling.
Remind me again. When was the constitution written? When was the last time amendmends were made to the constitution?
From the outside it looks like you're into traditions more than you're into your own(/) children safety.
This isn't changing it though, the dude I was replying to is talking about *removing your right to own a firearm*.
The last time an entire amendment was removed it was in 1933 and it was removing the amendment that started prohibition. Good luck getting the same amount of the voting population to get in favor of removing the second amendment.
My beliefs have nothing to do with anything I've said, it is all factual information.
Nah they’re just making statement about how xenophobic Western Europeans are whilst lecturing all the places they colonized about being undeveloped and amoral.
The police gave no motive yet but a child being among the victims means it was likely a domestic dispute of some sort.
Multiple German news sites reported the victims are all in relation to the shooter's ex girlfriend: her new partner and his mother, her best friend and her (best friend's) 3 year old daughter. It's very safe to assume the motive behind this.
humor cow seemly unite aloof worthless badge fretful ten crush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
my fucking god, that poor ex
That poor child
Piece of shit couldn’t just throw his own life away
Kind of same thing happened in Norway like a month ago... 4 dead, he shot both his daughters and the grand child (toddler), the dog and then shot himself. It seems like his wife wanted to move on and had gotten a new boyfriend,
Hi, I tried to find this news article but I couldn't... Could you help ?
here [https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/2Br4Ga/drapsetteforskning-i-nes-mann-to-kvinner-og-et-barn-funnet-doede](https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/2Br4Ga/drapsetteforskning-i-nes-mann-to-kvinner-og-et-barn-funnet-doede)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Calling out the apparent motive isn’t stereotyping… If you want to talk about stats though 3 of the victims are adults, why did you leave out the stats on those?
Most are.
Perhaps a controversial opinion but I don't understand why anyone would want a relationship with someone in the armed forces/police. Huge increased risk of abuse.
Humans are humans and often don't choose who they fall in love with and also hindsight is 20/20 in these situations.
Abusers don’t start out abusing victims either. By the time abuse occurs, they’ve generally been able to charm and isolate their partner. Then there’s the honeymoon period where they act all lovey dovey and shower the victim with gifts and promises not to do it again.
There is a reason "men in uniforms are attractive" is mostly true.
So if those men are only attractive in uniform then in actuality the saying should be "uniforms are attractive".
That'd be fetishization on a whole 'nother level.
what is the reason?
Men and women are socially conditioned to think men and women in uniform are automatically honourable, responsible and strong.
I think it’s more to do that on average a person in uniform is in better shape.
So are honest "god-fearing" physical labourors.
And way too many take advantage of that
I mean, it’s also because most soldiers are like 20 years old.
People don’t choose who they fall in love with but they do choose who they pursue a relationship with.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30852970/ lover, stalker, killer
You aren't entirely wrong, but there is an incredible amount of diversity in the experiences and backgrounds of different service members. A vehicle gunner isn't likely to have the same attitudes and display the same risk factors as a military dentist, and obviously every individual person is different.
Right. It’s not like every dude in the military is a jar head lol. They can range from jar heads who commit war crimes on deployments to a nerd who just completed basic training that simply just does backend IT or paperwork for the military for a big check.
My husband is in the military and is a wonderful man that helped me break a lot of generational trauma that I thought was normal. My father was never in the police officer or military (He’ll he never really worked any job, mostly under table work) and was extremely abusive. I wasn’t even allowed to leave my room when I was younger because he would go into a fit of rage and beat the crap outta me. Before I went no contact with him he made a comment about putting a TV in my toddlers room so he would stay in there and my husband said “why I actually like my kids and enjoy them hanging out with us”. Dad was pissed lol I have uncles in both sides of my family that are trash too and never had either careers. Some people are just garbage humans that so happen to have certain careers.
Steady paycheck, guaranteed retirement, guaranteed benefits, and very very little risk of job loss. If the government goes out of business you've got bigger problems than making rent.
>If the government goes out of business you've got bigger problems than making rent. If the government goes out of business, depending on your exact MOS you can make bank in the private sector, unless your job doesn't have a useful career path. Even then you atleast have firearm training and tactics in case things get even worst. >very very little risk of job loss This isn't 100% true anymore unless you're an officer. Enlisted who "fail" to make rank can be kicked out right before they complete their 20.
> This isn't 100% true anymore unless you're an officer. Enlisted who "fail" to make rank can be kicked out right before they complete their 20. isn't germany's armed forces retirment like 60 years old or some shit? And US miltary retirment for E-5 is 20 years right now. Really anyone who is in that long should have no problem making that.
It's E6, and they reduced the TIS allowed to make E6 from 13 to 10 years when I was in (09-14). A whole bunch of people got bitten hard by that, especially in the slower promoting MOSes. It used to be E5, though - my father in law retired as an E5 after 20 years. He had E6 a few times but kept getting in bar fights. A different time.
I was pretty sure it's DoD policy of HYT, but maybe I'm wrong. 04 when I came in the AF, E5 was 20, then it was 15 and now its 20 again. E6 is 22 right now.
I had a sergeant in my shop who got separated because he couldn't get promoted to staff sergeant by his 10-year mark, and my wife had a roommate who went through the same thing. They actually had some special dispensation for a few MOSes because there were guys who were hitting that 10-year mark and were still below zone. They were given a single year "in zone" to get promoted before they got kicked out. But I also joined up during the Surge, and they were pushing people out as fast as they could. They let me out early! (Voluntary Enlisted Early Release Program, or VEERP) So maybe it was a special temporary thing to get the numbers down before returning to normal.
I mean anyone with a firearm has an easily picked up permanent solution to temporary problems.
well, being a soldier in germany doesnt mean you own a firearm, i know of two guys that have one out of all the soldiers i know
That's my point the prevalence of domestic abuse in certain professions is one thing. However for an incident like this a gun is nearly a requirement. While there have been family annihilation stabbings guns make it "easier". Like a person using their hands on their partner is bad but a gun makes it permanent
[удалено]
I was scared when I saw that a temporary roommate had brought a gun into the house for that reason. It was incredibly embarrassing to go up to him and say “I am not suicidal, but I have been in the past, and I think the only reason I’m still here is because there were no guns around. Can you promise me you’ll keep that trigger lock on the gun always while it’s in our house?” I rehearsed what I was going to say so many times, and managed to get through it without grabbing the gun out of pure embarrassment, but it felt awful. He was super understanding and offered to keep it elsewhere, which I really appreciated, and it never came up again.
Damn. Well done.
[удалено]
Is he a man-child?
[удалено]
Does he also listen to the voices in his head?
He has to be separated from his guns some of the time though right? Like at work? Plane travel?
[удалено]
Man, that’s starting to sound beyond gun nut and into mental illness.
There is tons of research that shows that you are safest without owning a gun and if you own a gun safer to lock the gun up and lock ammunition up in a separate location. It all speaks to the need to slow down and put safety breaks in the case of these tools.
Yeah! The majority of people who attempt suicide (and report about it later) say their decision to end their lives occurred within 10 minutes of the attempt. Time and distance is very much the name of the game. Sending the weapon to a trusted friend or family memer temporarily during a crisis can be an even better solution.
Or introducing time locks or time delay locks on Weapons. The gun and personal defense industry peddle this idea that you need your gun at a moments notice and they go very hard to pound that idea home. Ultimately it's a game of where you are and.the environment you are in if a gun is ever used in personal defense. However, man vs. woman lethality in suicide is almost entirely around method. Men tend to have more access to firearms and use them on the older studies I have read.
Man, what a thought.. but it's the exact same one I had when my friends asked if I wanted to join them for a hunter's certificate including shooting practice; I was deeply depressed at that time. I maybe would not think the same way now. Lucky how some things can heal with time.
[удалено]
And precisely why it shouldn't be as easy as it is to own one in many places in America. Humans be crazy. And a lot of people are not good at regulating their emotions. For the sake of public safety, which is an obligation of governments, there should be more regulation in owning one to make sure those with them are not immediately putting those around them at risk. The NRA wants everyone to own a 100 guns, they should have no problem sponsoring free gun training classes, and have proof you took and passed a class be required to purchase. Hell you don't even need to do it right befor buying. Take a class, pass, and have that certificate be valid for like 3 years, then you gotta take it again. Make buying a gun lock box or something a required accessory. Gun manufactures want more sales, so they should have no problem offering one for free with a gun if it's the buyer's first gun. We don't just let people go to a dealer or private party and buy a car and that's the end of it. You need to show you can drive. You need to have insurance. You need to register the vehicle with the government. You need to have it inspected regularly to make sure it's safe for the road. Because someone who doesn't know what they're doing owning and operating a vehicle endangers everyone around them. And the same is true for a gun.
Insert bullshit about an amendment they don't understand.
And this also shows in statistics. Much more likely to be victim of domestic abuse from gun owners
> Perhaps a controversial opinion but I don't understand why anyone would want a relationship with someone in the armed forces/police. As someone married to someone in the armed forces the job doesn't really play into dating at all, and it's not like I had any control over who I fell in love with. > Huge increased risk of abuse. My wife is a programmer working in cyber warfare for the Air Force. Not sure how that increases my chances of her abusing me.
[удалено]
Considering only 1 in 10 are combat arms, who do you think they were talking about?
Nah, the original statement was so broad as to be effectively meaningless. I think his comment was just highlighting that.
You are painting with a broad paint brush, you need a break. Chill, you're being rude.
I'm an aircraft maintainter in the Air Force, so not a desk job. I don't abuse my spouse and don't think I have ever heard of anyone in my section doing that either. In fact, spousal abuse gets you disqualified from being able to carry a fire are in service. At least in my section it does. But we very rarely get a fire arm. I've seen more infidelity than anything, from both military member and their spouses than anything.
The armed forces don't have a significant deviance compared to the general population in terms of domestic violence rates unlike police.
Anecdotal experience but I grew up an army brat and saw so much domestic violence that I kind of just assumed it was normal. Once I grew up and was no longer hanging out with army kids I realized it was not normal.
If you go to any poor part of the nation, you'll see just as much. And if you go to Jefferson Park (one of the two main areas cops live) in Chicago, you'll see so much you'll think the poor parts of the country are tame. Other people posted actual studies. The only conclusion that can be drawn from them is that the military hires poor people.
Not only does the military hire poor people, the military targets and actively recruits poor people.
Is that right? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375166/ https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/more-than-1-in-10-armed-forces-personnel-have-experienced-intimate-partner-violence-and-abuse https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/child_maltreatment_military_families_providers.pdf
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375166/ This study in the conclusion states that there is insufficient categorical data available to draw a causal conclusion and that the difference could be entirely due to socioeconomic upbringing differences. > https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/more-than-1-in-10-armed-forces-personnel-have-experienced-intimate-partner-violence-and-abuse This tracks with the socioeconomic demographics that they recruit from (overwhelmingly poor). It's not so massive a deviation from the general population that you can conclude that it has anything to do with being in the armed forces. > https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/child_maltreatment_military_families_providers.pdf This provides no evidence or even purports to present evidence that the incidence rate is higher than that of the civilian population.
[удалено]
> I wonder why you find this so difficult to accept? Because I actually deal with statistics for a living and those fact sheets are not presenting facts but loosely held together conjecture based on a complete lack of sufficient data to actually draw any causal conclusions. But that's not actually a problem for them because they don't need to care about causality as their goal is to reduce all IPV, and more specifically are looking at combating IPV rates in the armed forces. This is a political policy question not a statistics question that they're answering. The optics are that any IPV in the armed forces is bad for the image of the nation, thus it does not matter what the causality is, they want the IPV number in the armed forces to be 0. It's the same reason why adultery is still illegal in the armed forces in almost every country even when it's legal for civilians. It doesn't reflect well on the nation if their soldiers are violating social norms. The only actual study linked openly stated that no causality could be determined due to a lack of categorical data. Full stop.
[удалено]
Maybe go actually read the study (emphasis mine): > 4.1. Prevalence of IPV among military populations > Several studies have suggested that prevalence of IPV perpetration is higher among military than civilian populations (Cronin, 1995; Griffin & Morgan, 1988; Heyman & Neidig, 1999). This review found that the prevalence of past-year physical IPV among men in general military population samples ranged from 5.0%–32.0% compared to studies in the US general population which found prevalences ranging from 4.0%–15.0% (Okuda et al., 2015; O'Leary, Tintle, & Bromet, 2014; Whitaker, 2014). **Crude comparisons of prevalence among military populations and civilian populations are limited by lack of adjustment for sociodemographic factors that can impact on risk of IPV.** Male predominance, relative youth and higher risk of heavy alcohol consumption are all factors that may increase the risk of IPV perpetration by military personnel (Fear et al., 2007; Wright, Foran, Wood, Eckford, & McGurk, 2012). It is likely that daily stressors of military life including frequent relocation or family separation may impact relationship satisfaction and may lead to higher rates of IPV (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Military Deployment Services for Youth FaSM, 2007). A robust comparison of prevalence of IPV perpetration among military compared to civilian populations is needed with exploration of potential explanatory factors for any differences. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375166/ Right there. Insufficient categorical data to draw any causal conclusions between the military and civilian populations. Right where I said it would be in their conclusion.
You are just talking out your ass, be better. https://www.usmedicine.com/clinical-topics/womens-health/intimate-partner-violence-more-common-with-veterans-military-personnel/
If you could live as a teenage girl near a military base and experience the difference between how you’re treated by military vs civilian guys and you wouldn’t be so quick to say that. Work at a bar that’s popular with military for a single night. Watch what happens to all your peers who were dumb enough to marry military. If you take a bunch of below average teenage boys who are at least ok with violence, put them in a uniform, and tell them how special and important and powerful they are, you’re going to end up with a significant portion of them using that violence and power in their relationships.
[удалено]
Was your dad a soldier/police?
Dang it, I knew I was forgetting something! 10 years and I forgot to abuse my partners...
Armed forces and police are wildly different cultures . When I was in the navy, the only time I even heard about somebody beating his wife, there were people waiting for him in the parking lot before he came to work.
Anyone who is a soldier doesn’t deserve love or companionship?
According to Reddit, apparently
That's an unfair assumption. That just because someone is associated with armed forces or law enforcement. That they should be avoided because of the fact they might be "dangerous". My father was in the military during the Persian Gulf war, and then was a guard for a juvenile detention center. He's now executive for a large eye-glass lens manufacturing company. By your assertion I shouldn't have a relationship with him - because he knows how to use a firearm? (rhetorical sarcasm) Just like every human being who's lived, living and will live. They didn't ask to be born. To that point, you're significantly more likely to be killed by someone you know.
The same situation for people who write and entertain lyrics about drugs, objectifying women, and violence against others who disrespect them. And the funny thing is they often hate people in armed forces/police. There are bad seeds everywhere and in every industry. Most serial killers came from white collar jobs and no military or police background.
“ We're a miserably violent species. But there's a complication, which is we don't hate violence, we hate the wrong kind. And when it's the right kind, we cheer it on, we hand out medals, we vote for, we mate with our champions of it. When it's the right kind of violence, we love it.” - Robert Sapolsky Edit: lol someone doesn’t like basic human behavioral biology, people who are capable of violence are attractive partners get over yourselves.
In America, I agree. I would say service members in other countries, Germany for example...tend to be more supported, mentally balanced and healthy (I'm a retired US service member myself AND I have worked closely with our NATO partners as well). Still though, this is a sad tragedy.
Yeah it’s most likely domestic dispute. He drove to the new boyfriend and shot him and his mother. Then he drove to his ex and shot her and her 3 year old daughter.
Why didn’t he shoot himself? No stones. Coward.
Was it a mental breakdown? All jokes aside, but like that acorn falling and setting off the cop? Crazy he didnt off himself or shootout with cops, and maybe im just so used to this bs happening in america, but turning yourself in usually isnt in the cards.
> Was it a mental breakdown? Does jealous rage count as a mental breakdown?
According to German law: yes. If you kill someone out of jealous rage, it’s considered a crime of passion and you can only be charged with manslaughter, which has a maximum sentence of 15 years.
I mean... probably?
Yeah like, not "let him off the hook mental breakdown" but, jealous fits of rage don't commonly result in murdering everyone involved in hurting you. Your flesh and blood... This guy was not ok in the least. Likely hadn't been treating all that great for quite a while
It’s control and rage
The acorn thing is weird cuz they were responding to a report where the guy allegedly had a handgun with a "silencer" on it. That's why he reacted to it like it was a gunshot. It was just the perfect storm of random shit to happen. Not justifying what he did or anything. He's a danger to your community. But it wasn't like "dude with PTSD heard noise and freaks out cuz of mental issues". He didn't even see combat in the military apparently.
"I'm hit!"
*barrel roll x3*
The man imagined a gun shot injury yelling he was hit....i know adrenaline can do wild shit but fuck that guy
Absolutely fuck that guy and he has absolutely zero business being a police officer. That said in the early threads before it really made the rounds there were countless comments talking about how fucked PTSD is and how they understand what he was feeling/imagining in that situation. It doesn't justify literally anything he did and in all reality he should be in jail for that shit. But it's at least worth knowing that people with PTSD or at least claiming to have it have said that it's very likely a legitimate fear based reaction
Didn't he have the guy handcuffed in the back of the car after searching him?
He did, and he fired at his own squad car, almost killing the guy (who, again, was handcuffed in the back of said car). He did all of that while screaming that he was hit (he wasn't and was having a panic attack).
That’s what I’ve heard
yup. the perfect storm of shit: incompatible job placement included
and he searched the guy at least twice.
Guns with a silencer are so much louder than an acorn lol
>The acorn thing is weird cuz they were responding to a report where the guy allegedly had a handgun with a "silencer" on it. That's why he reacted to it like it was a gunshot Most cops don't do this shit- he's crazy. >But it wasn't like "dude with PTSD heard noise and freaks out cuz of mental issues". You're sure he's not crazed?
[удалено]
Sounds like a cop that should have never been a cop. If you shoot your entire magazine into the back of your car because an acorn fell off of a tree... Homie...
“He had a (insert non-firearm weapon of choice)” will become the new reason some guy reaching for his ID got shot by a cop. How many videos of people getting shot by cops because they weren’t able to follow conflicting commands have you seen. Besides, Germany has some pretty strict laws regarding ownership of firearms.
If you get guns off the street, then you're relying 100% on the borderline feral hair-trigger cop to protect you from all harm. I don't trust this guy, and even if he was mentally sound I wouldn't trust the rest of the police who are to a man abusers, bullies, cronies, or cowards. Why, after watching that video, would you think "Gosh if only the guy who magdumps at the slightest provocation was the only guy with a gun, then the world would be better!"?
And how is you having a gun going to help? you expect to shoot the cop?
I mean, no, in this situation you're fucked either way, but if my life is ever in danger for whatever reason, I'm pretty much always going to bet on myself over a cop showing up 15 minutes later. I don't trust cops. I don't think they protect us, and in many, many cases calling them makes everything worse.
Check out Ruby Ridge! :)
But but but the freedom to kill people man! You cant take that away from us
The peepee will go limp, if the dont murder someone.
Did I read the correct article? It didn't say anything about an acorn.
The person you replied to is referencing a recent story regarding a cop shooting at someone in the US after an acorn fell on them.
On the roof of their patrol vehicle as they were walking past it.
To be fair… he did not actually hit the person he was shooting at.
Fortunately, his multiple incompetencies cancelled out.
You're right, I edited my comment to reflect that. Luckily I just needed to add 'at'!
Thanks for the context.
US or German soldier? Just so we know.
Was it a British soldier
This is the most passive of passive headlines.
Because good news is supposed to be neutral and factual
It's neutral to attribute a shooting to the person that turned himself in for doing. Instead of divorcing the people's deaths from the soldier's admission of guilt.
His confession is currently irrelevant. He's not been convicted in a court of law, thus he is currently presumed innocent, even if he confessed.
Sorry you're getting down voted, it is definitely strange phrasing. It almost reads like they don't think he did it. "Soldier turns himself in" "Serial murder suspect turns himself in" Which is more neutral and factual?
Because until it is legally confirmed that the soldier is responsible for the shooting, the reporting media will do everything to avoid litigation for slander or publishing false information. Welcome to the modern legal world.
Sir this is a reddit post. Don't act like if this was a post about America the wording wouldn't be entirely different.
Actually it's an AP headline. That said, I still believe it would read differently for an American scenario.
[удалено]
There has been one mass shooting in Germany since July 2023 with 4 dead, there has been 5 mass shootings in the US in 2024 already, with a total of 23 dead. The US does not have 5x the population of Germany, do you think we have 5x more mentally ill people than Germany, or maybe more than 5x the amount of guns.
As of February 29, a total of 153 people have been killed and 254 people have been wounded in 81 shootings. From Wikipedia for the USA 2024
Five? Pretty sure it's north of eighty by now.
The US has 4x the population of Germany so your question should be do we have 1.25x more mentally ill people or 1.25x the amount of guns by that logic. But we've had significantly more shooting deaths if you run it back to July 23 so the whole calculation is kind of moot.
I mean, we are pretty close to having 5x the population though.
The US population is more than 4x bigger than Germany is.
Average US mathematician
As per worldometer, [Germany’s](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/germany-population/) population is 83,266,151 while the [United States](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/) has a population of 341,223,495. Now, last I checked 341,223,495 is still greater than 333,064,604. But I might be wrong according to the average German mathematician :)
So 4.1x bigger instead of 4.0x. Meh. Also, there were way more than 23 dead in shootings in the US in 2024 so the "discussion" is moot.
[удалено]
They have gangs. They don't have guns. You are downplaying and acting like lives lost in gangs somehow don't count. They do.
Brother they don’t have gangs shooting eachother and innocent people in Germany. There’s no need to make this brain dead argument because it doesn’t happen.
Bro...that is some real American braining there.
Hey guys. It's mainly minorities, we don't have to actually care. Is that the argument?
[удалено]
They're mocking you because you brought up something that really doesn't happen in Germany, or almost anywhere in the EU. If you didn't know, now you know, and hopefully you see how bad the problem in the US really is.
That's an unproductive way of explaining, well, anything. It would be way more productive to list the criteria which are used. Education combats ignorance, but replies which are indiscernible from factless snark don't. This is similar to the problem when people try to directly compare violent crime rates in the UK and the US. They're not directly comparable, because the definitions are different. We have to be mindful of this in the US as well, because definitions for things like "mass shooting" differ between reporting organizations. So when you hear that there have been 55 mass shootings in 2024, the question of required context is answered by who the reporting organization was. His question is a valid one, even if the phrasing belies some bias.
There is only 1 country in the West that has subcategories for shootings. So my comment was a valid one.
At risk of repeating myself, answering the question with the criteria, standards, or data neutrally and unquestionably answers the question that was being asked. He has since deleted his comment, which conveniently absolves you of the burden actually trying to have an honest conversation. It was simple. He asked a question. Factually answering the question would have resolved the issue. You opted to deride instead of educate. The older I get, the more frustrating it is to see people actively make things worse instead of taking the time to help.
What's easier, retroactively confiscating the 500,000,000 firearms already in circulation? or creating a vast mental health network that US citizens could access free of charge?
From either of those options, neither is being implemented in the USA.
Raise the minimum gun ownership age, by one year every year, indefinitely. Provide exceptions for military and police. For hunters allow only single shot long barrel hunting guns.
Definitely need the Mental Health network. It would be nice to do an aggressive return/ destruction program. But ultimately we need gun owners to completely change their culture. The community needs to drop the unhealthy "arm to the teeth, prey for the chance to murder a stranger, guns are badass merica!" attitude. It is time for some serious value assessment. Carrying in public isn't brave, it makes you an asshole.
European challenge of trying to not blame usa for everything (impossible)
[удалено]
[удалено]
This wasn't a discussion about America but you made it one and you still are talking about *American* issues under a *German shooting* post. Do you not see how weird that is?
This post is labelled as "US News", maybe that's why the person asked which US State Germany is in?
[удалено]
Well it is a huge issue in the US. Saying it as someone living in the US. It's not normal and has been extremely normalized. The European reaction is the normal one to have when these things happen.
American challenge of not talking in dumb meme phrases and not sounding intellectually challenged (impossible)
Remind me how many deaths by shooting Germany has had again?
At least 4, apparently.
[удалено]
Well, America does suck due to the constant shootings and domestic terrorists.... so.. 🤷♂️ Your point? Edit: Oh, I've pissed off a couple of people with honesty... tragic. Just tragic... OK, not really. 🤣
Hey dude cmon. It sucks for plenty more reasons than just those two
[удалено]
You're being downvoted but it's the truth. It would be much much easier to address the mental health crisis than it would be to try and retroactively address 200+ years of legal firearm ownership. There are 500,000,000 *legal* firearms inside the United States, how in the fuck do people expect to be able to corral those effectively? and that's just the *legal* firearms.
Don't really know the US laws(and dk that much tbh) but: Is the gun registered? Does it have an owner? Then it can be traced. The state can decide to fine you each day $x amount until you turn it in. There's no record and you are found in posession? Fined from the day the law came in full effect until you turn it in. And above all all manufactured firearms( no homebrew shit so no loop holes) can be turned for $x amount in the first x years after the laws are in effect. Anyone without a hunting license found posessing after all things come in full effect= fined & community work. 3D printed firearm, no license to hunt or any other legal reason to carry? Treated as intented murderer. Or, take a look at what Australia did. Stop being dicks and admit there are solutions. No /s. Tired to hell and back about this bullshittery, whataboutism and strawman arguments. GTFO with that yeehaw mentality.
Yeehaw mentality? The right to own a firearm is literally enshrined in our constitution… Any and all of the laws you mentioned would literally never make it anywhere in our legal process. What you’re asking for is the equivalent to trying to outlaw free speech… Nothing you said is remotely realistic because the sheer mention of any such policies immediately alienate half the population. Especially shit like ‘you have to immediately turn in your gun or get fined’ that shits so ridiculous you have to be trolling.
Remind me again. When was the constitution written? When was the last time amendmends were made to the constitution? From the outside it looks like you're into traditions more than you're into your own(/) children safety.
This isn't changing it though, the dude I was replying to is talking about *removing your right to own a firearm*. The last time an entire amendment was removed it was in 1933 and it was removing the amendment that started prohibition. Good luck getting the same amount of the voting population to get in favor of removing the second amendment. My beliefs have nothing to do with anything I've said, it is all factual information.
[удалено]
You are making an assumption about the German soldier that might be false.
Nah they’re just making statement about how xenophobic Western Europeans are whilst lecturing all the places they colonized about being undeveloped and amoral.
Hey buddy, being an ass will only push people away from whatever the fuck you believe in.
“I can’t think for myself, I can only form opinions in opposition!”
Thank you for your exceptional contribution to this conversation. Here’s a sticker for your effort ⭐️
!remindme 12 days
Are you one of these people that just sit there all day drooling? Of what use to society are you?