Austria mass shooting

[krooton]

Firearms are also safe the vast majority of the time and largely used for recreational purposes, most dangerous pets originate from an animal with features optimised to kill.



In countries with reasonable firearms restrictions mass shootings are exceedingly rare.

Quite a few people get seriously injured or killed by dangerous pets each year, not uncommonly younger relatives of irresponsible pet owners, but dangerous animals are just one potential example used to illustrate the logic, you could apply the same to baseball bats, etc. (and an emerging interesting situation with drones).

They just aren't comparable imo, firearms are designed to do damage or kill things, the fact that they can also be used to do those very activities in a recreational setting doesn't change that.
A car's primary purpose is to transport things.
A baseball bat's primary purpose is to hit baseballs.

Heck, the protection aspect of firearms is still directly linked to the point that they damage/kill, much like aggressive guard dogs (which I also think should be banned from gen pop ownership).

 

[Rroff]

They just aren't comparable imo, firearms are designed to do damage or kill things, the fact that they can also be used to do those very activities in a recreational setting doesn't change that.
A car's primary purpose is to transport things.
A baseball bat's primary purpose is to hit baseballs.

Heck, the protection aspect of firearms is still directly linked to the point that they damage/kill, much like aggressive guard dogs (which I also think should be banned from gen pop ownership).

How do you distinguish between a firearm designed for hunting and one designed for sport shooting (of which plenty exist) - for contrast a club designed for bludgeoning things to death and a baseball bat designed for sport?

 

[VincentHanna]

No but add up deaths and injuries from dangerous dogs Vs the same committed by legal firearms owners.

You didn't specify a country:

Fatal dog attacks in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

30-50 people each year fatally killed by dogs.

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just this year alone (6 months in) 216 people killed. That's mass shootings not random murders.

But you said "legal firearms owners" - Well there is less data for that, but:

Mass shootings by legality of weapons U.S. 2026 | Statista

103 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and March 2026 involved weapons that were obtained legally. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally. Legally owned firearms in the U.S. Within the United States, one must be at least 18 years old to purchase...

www.statista.com

"100 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and September 2024 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally."

 

[krooton]

How do you distinguish between a firearm designed for hunting and one designed for sport shooting (of which plenty exist) - for contrast a club designed for bludgeoning things to death and a baseball bat designed for sport?

Oh I get I am being idealistic. It's a cost/benefit analysis sort of thing for me.

There are FAR more people who play baseball, or use cars for daily transport, than there are people who hunt or shoot for recreation.
The non-violent 'benefits' of firearms are heavily outweighed by their potential for harm, in my opinion.

 

[Rroff]

Oh I get I am being idealistic. It's a cost/benefit analysis sort of thing for me.

There are FAR more people who play baseball, or use cars for daily transport, than there are people who hunt or shoot for recreation.
The non-violent 'benefits' of firearms are heavily outweighed by their potential for harm, in my opinion.

No one needs to play games with a bat though - there are plenty of sports which can be played without while giving all the benefits - if we totally ban bats then no one dies to a bat ever.

Ideologically I don't agree with absolute bans on things just because of a tiny number of crazy people whatever that is, though appropriate restrictions to limit the actions of crazy people may be appropriate.

 

[Nitefly]

This is thread is loaded with absurdisms / straw-man arguments.

Banning guns does not mean that banning everything dangerous is a logical conclusion.

Banning guns does not attempt to seek to limit all acts of violence. It attempts to limit crimes that committed with the use of (or threat of) guns.

What a country ought to do is strike an appropriate balance based on not only logic, but existing risk landscapes. An immediate outright ban on guns in the USA would be silly, whereas a phased reduction in firearms and increase in proportionate controls is less silly.

All things considered, the legitimate use of firearms - designed to kill - seems to be extremely limited for most individuals, and therefore it makes sense to me that there is decent regulation in place.

 

[BUDFORCE]

You didn't specify a country:

Fatal dog attacks in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

30-50 people each year fatally killed by dogs.

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just this year alone (6 months in) 216 people killed. That's mass shootings not random murders.

But you said "legal firearms owners" - Well there is less data for that, but:

Mass shootings by legality of weapons U.S. 2026 | Statista

103 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and March 2026 involved weapons that were obtained legally. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally. Legally owned firearms in the U.S. Within the United States, one must be at least 18 years old to purchase...

www.statista.com

"100 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and September 2024 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally."

In this country.

I'll save you some time, the inuries and deaths caused by dogs far outweighs those caused by legally held firearms.

So by saying (not aimed at you specifically) that guns should be banned, well with that logic dogs should be banned, based on the statistics.

You cannot include any crime commited by an illegal firearm because they are, well illegal, banning people from having guns will not alter that figure.

That figure is even less if you only count proper firearms licence holders vs a shotgun licence, of those very few crimes commited by legally owned guns, nearly all of those are shotguns.

Point in case I was out walking the other day, I ilive in a rural area and its not that unusual for people to be out with shotguns. I was walking towards a large straw bale and 2 guys were hanging around, when I got a little closer I noticed something on a tripod, I thought, that looks a little like a gun, as I got even closer it indeed was, a proper rifle as well, not a shotgun, they were sigting it in on a bit of card, vaguely in my general direction.

It was my fault as technically that was private land although you can easily walk through there, they had every right to be doing what they were.

Anyway, I got chatting to the guys for about 20 minutes, one who lives in a bungalow just up a bit, really nice pair of chaps, and at no point, at all, did I feel even the slight bit intimidated. Had that been some big farm dog of off its lead I would have been absolutely ******** myself.

 

[Rroff]

Banning guns does not mean that banning everything dangerous is a logical conclusion.

The logical arguments, when reduced down, used for banning guns though [often] don't exist in isolation.

Though ultimately what I object to most is that the people who make the most noise about absolute bans on guns would be the first ones complaining if it was proposed to absolute ban something they had an interest in.

 

[Rroff]

That figure is even less if you only count proper firearms licence holders vs a shotgun licence, of those very few crimes commited by legally owned guns, nearly all of those are shotguns.

Not a popular move but IMO shotgun licensing needs some tweaking from the current shall permit position to bring it more inline with rifles - 9/10th of what little gun crime happens around where I live is with shotguns by people who wouldn't have got within a sniff of any other type of firearm. I live in an area with one of the highest firearms ownership levels in the country and also is amongst the lowest areas for firearms related crime or incidents.

 

[krooton]

The logical arguments, when reduced down, used for banning guns though [often] don't exist in isolation.

Though ultimately what I object to most is that the people who make the most noise about absolute bans on guns would be the first ones complaining if it was proposed to absolute ban something they had an interest in.

Brb, just going to start taking up recreational hand-grenade lobbing

 

[Maple Leaf]

Is 21 some factor? Do you have an age in mind where it would be ok to own guns whilst living in a city?

Most of the US school mass-shootings are committed by young adults. It's not unreasonable to set the legal age for firearm ownership higher to ensure you have less impulsive gun owners. After all, some van hire companies won't rent a van to you unless you are 30!

No one who's a civilian needs a gun, you just dont, there is no use for one (if you like target practice they should be held at licensed gun range)

What about hunting and pest control?

No one who lives in a "normal" society has a use for a gun, not even farmers, if they must kill random animals, trap them or just use an air rifle.

An air rifle simply isn't up to most jobs and traps are actually a lot more cruel to pests than a quick death from being shot.

Well for what it's worth I think rifles and pistols should be banned.

All calibres of breech-loading pistols have been banned in the UK since 1997. That's why the British Olympic team has to go abroad to practice with their single-shot .22 SR pistols!

Over a third of guns used in crime are pistols (probably over half are pistols due to the 'unidentified firearms' category the Home Office uses). That's because most of the murders committed with firearms in the UK are done with illegal guns by career criminals.

Centre-fire semi-automatic rifles (outside .22 LR) were banned in the UK in 1988. Rifles are very rarely used in crimes in the UK anyway.

The public just can't be trusted with them.

We don't need tougher gun control laws we just need to fund the Police adequately to enforce the current (very thorough) laws. Our gun control laws are already tougher than those in Russia! I dread to think what else you think the public cannot be trusted with.

But a gun's primary purpose is to kill and it can easily be hidden under a loose shirt in the back of your trousers... Not so easy for a rifle or bow.

Sometimes you need something whose primary purpose is to kill! Vermin control and hunting are not games. Also, breech-loading pistols have been illegal here for the last 28 years, so not sure what point you were making there.

This is thread is loaded with absurdisms / straw-man arguments. Banning guns does not mean that banning everything dangerous is a logical conclusion.

Well, the Home Office has been debating banning crossbows and pointed kitchen knives for some time so banning guns is hardly the end of it.

All things considered, the legitimate use of firearms - designed to kill - seems to be extremely limited for most individuals

I disagree. Look at the dangerous world we are in now. It looks like a war with Russia/China in the next 5-10 years is on the cards. Instead of telling gun owners they are just anti-social nutters and seeking to ban even more types of guns we should be training up a citizen army and teaching 17-year-olds how to shoot and maintain a rifle at school/college. By turning this country into a naive gun-free zone we are just weakening our population's resilience when the worst case scenario inevitably materializes.

You cannot make a middle-aged man with no experience (who was also brought up to be frightened of firearms by every authority figure they ever met) into a marksmen quickly when a major war is breathing down your neck. My grandfather said that during World War 2 many of the 18-year-olds who were conscripted and were shipping out to fight could barely shoot straight.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

You didn't specify a country:

Fatal dog attacks in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

30-50 people each year fatally killed by dogs.

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just this year alone (6 months in) 216 people killed. That's mass shootings not random murders.

But you said "legal firearms owners" - Well there is less data for that, but:

Mass shootings by legality of weapons U.S. 2026 | Statista

103 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and March 2026 involved weapons that were obtained legally. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally. Legally owned firearms in the U.S. Within the United States, one must be at least 18 years old to purchase...

www.statista.com

"100 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and September 2024 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally."

About 3.25x more likely to die from stabbing than in a mass shooting. You better let the USA know they should ban knifes too.

 

[D.P.]

If we use that kind of logic why not ban pets which are at all dangerous as well? if someone really likes animals they can visit a zoo.

There is only so far we should restrict things just because of the actions of a small number of crazy people.

Pets aren't designed solely to kill people so i have no idea how you can compare the 2.


I'm perfectly happy for everything that is designed to kill and injure to banned in a consistent manner. Anything that injury or death is unintended accidental.side effect like a car that has a primary other function can be excluded from the ban.

 

[Rroff]

Pets aren't designed solely to kill people so i have no idea how you can compare the 2.

I'm talking about the no one needs logic, though dangerous pets are dangerous generally because they are/were built (or bred) to hunt and kill.

 

[D.P.]

I'm talking about the no on needs logic, though dangerous pets are dangerous generally because they are/were built (or bred) to hunt and kill.

And dangerous dog breeds can be banned and still be consistent.

No one needs guns outside army and specialist police.

 

[Rroff]

And dangerous dog breeds can be banned and still be consistent.

No one needs guns outside army and specialist police.

Dogs are only a small part of my comment (see post 40).

 

[D.P.]

No one needs to play games with a bat though - there are plenty of sports which can be played without while giving all the benefits - if we totally ban bats then no one dies to a bat ever.

Ideologically I don't agree with absolute bans on things just because of a tiny number of crazy people whatever that is, though appropriate restrictions to limit the actions of crazy people may be appropriate.

A bat isn't designed to kill. All these arguments from you are just plain absurd and have no logic.

 

[Rroff]

A bat isn't designed to kill. All these arguments from you are just plain absurd and have no logic.

A bat is just a club designed for sports - it can still be used to kill someone, how is a firearm designed for sports shooting any different?

 

[BUDFORCE]

A bat isn't designed to kill. All these arguments from you are just plain absurd and have no logic.

But neither is yours, it's based on a perception.

If you look at the figures of crimes committed by legally owned firearms, particularly injuries and deaths, it's almost non existent.

So you would be happy to take the liberty of many hundreds of thousands of law abiding people over perception that isn't backed up by evidence?

If you compare that against any number of hobbies, you want to compare it to how many people get injured riding horses?

 

[Dr Jack]

On the off chance anyone is still interested in the actual topic: some more details have come out. It seems the killer had planned a pipe bomb attack but seems to have given up whilst trying to make one, thankfully. Although I'm not sure how much worse a pipe bomb would have been that what actually happened. One the motive front it seems that while he left a note, it did not contain any information on his motivation. No confused manifesto this time.