PDA

View Full Version : Shooting in Dutch shopping mall: 7 people killed and 16 wounded


Sasja
Apr 9th, 2011, 12:26 PM
From BBC news:

At least two people have been killed and several others wounded by a gunman in the Netherlands town of Alphen aan den Rijn, Dutch media say.

The reports say the shootings took place in a shopping centre in the town, 21km (13 miles) south-west of Amsterdam.

No cause has been given for the shootings.

One witness said the attacker had a machine gun and that there were from five to 10 deaths.

The local government issued a statement saying the number of dead and wounded could not be confirmed, AP news agency said.

"The mall has been cleared and a wide area around it is cordoned off," the statement said.


EDIT: It is now confirmed that 7 people were killed, including the gunman. And 16 people are wounded :sad:

Sasja
Apr 9th, 2011, 12:34 PM
:sad:

It has just been on the news in the Netherlands.
Four people have been killed, including the attacker who shot himself in the head.
And they say that 9 people are wounded.

My thoughts and prayers goes out to all families, friends of victims and anyone affected by the shooting.

McPie
Apr 9th, 2011, 12:44 PM
:eek:

Gaz.
Apr 9th, 2011, 12:45 PM
:sobbing:

Sasja
Apr 9th, 2011, 01:48 PM
There has just been a press conference where they said that 6 people were killed (including the gunman) and 16 people are wounded of which 4 severely wounded :tears:

Elwin.
Apr 9th, 2011, 04:55 PM
I live so close :tears:
My family also live like 2 blocks away from that mall. I also have been in that mall several times.
Disgusting :o

Rip :sad:

Edit: 7 deaths now

Sasja
Apr 9th, 2011, 05:04 PM
I live so close :tears:
My family also live like 2 blocks away from that mall. I also have been in that mall several times.
Disgusting :o

Rip :sad:

Edit: 7 deaths now

Horrible new. Such a tragedy :tears:
Some of the victims are children.
Three other malls in Alphen a/d Rijn have been evacuated this afternoon as a precaution. This was based on a note that has been found.

ys
Apr 9th, 2011, 05:09 PM
:sad:
On the other note , they sell the guns freely in Holland? This must have happened because of that.

Elwin.
Apr 9th, 2011, 05:26 PM
:sad:
On the other note , they sell the guns freely in Holland? This must have happened because of that.
No we don't. It's illegal here.

ys
Apr 9th, 2011, 05:37 PM
No we don't. It's illegal here.

Exactly

LeonHart
Apr 9th, 2011, 05:58 PM
Exactly

:angel:

Mistress of Evil
Apr 9th, 2011, 06:27 PM
oh gosh :crying2: I just wonder why such ppl just shout themselves and get it over with no need to take any more lives :sad:

Shonami Slam
Apr 9th, 2011, 09:30 PM
sad news, please if there is more news update!

Halardfan
Apr 9th, 2011, 09:41 PM
:sad:
On the other note , they sell the guns freely in Holland? This must have happened because of that.

In a significant majority of such awful cases the guns involved are legally owned.

No one said the gun laws and attitude to guns are the only factors. Such incidents happen anywhere though some countries much more than others.

But I can't be bothered to go down that track again as we will never agree, so it best left there.

Blu€
Apr 9th, 2011, 10:00 PM
First that shooting in Brazil and now this, what a weekend! Scary world we live in :o

ys
Apr 9th, 2011, 10:49 PM
In a significant majority of such awful cases the guns involved are legally owned.

In absolutely negligeble minority of all violent crimes the guns involved are legally owned.
That those very crimes tend to become showcases and get a lot of publicity - I don't care about it. I don't see why one murder is more important than another.
Overwhelming majority of all violent crimes is done by career criminals. They don't own legal guns. Period.

Halardfan
Apr 9th, 2011, 11:33 PM
In absolutely negligeble minority of all violent crimes the guns involved are legally owned.
That those very crimes tend to become showcases and get a lot of publicity - I don't care about it. I don't see why one murder is more important than another.
Overwhelming majority of all violent crimes is done by career criminals. They don't own legal guns. Period.

I'm talking about these kind of going postal mass shootings.

But as I say I know your argument by heart, and you know mine by heart, it's revisited after every such massacre, let's not do it again. I agree to disagree this time.

King Halep
Apr 9th, 2011, 11:55 PM
In a significant majority of such awful cases the guns involved are legally owned.

No one said the gun laws and attitude to guns are the only factors. Such incidents happen anywhere though some countries much more than others.

But I can't be bothered to go down that track again as we will never agree, so it best left there.

If you dont know him by now, he is just being his usual smartarse. Trying to take a serious event and make some pathetic political comment on it. He supports the right for Americans to flood their country with guns to 'protect themselves'.

ys
Apr 10th, 2011, 05:42 AM
If you dont know him by now, he is just being his usual smartarse. Trying to take a serious event and make some pathetic political comment on it. He supports the right for Americans to flood their country with guns to 'protect themselves'.

But we also know you liberals and your unique habits. Like turning to personal each time you ran out of arguments. And always when I see such post, when that happens, it is a nice thing to see, it is a defacto intellectual capitulation with signature and date.. :)

hellas719
Apr 10th, 2011, 06:01 AM
oh gosh :crying2: I just wonder why such ppl just shout themselves and get it over with no need to take any more lives :sad:

Seriously if you want to committ suicide, kill yourself and don't fucking kill random innocent people that your don't even know :rolleyes:

ys
Apr 10th, 2011, 06:12 AM
Seriously if you want to committ suicide, kill yourself and don't fucking kill random innocent people that your don't even know :rolleyes:

If someone, who is physically healthy to live, wants to die, you have to understand, that in this case our regular rationale is no longer inapplicable. Such a person is no longer normal or mentally healthy, isn't it obvious?

Lord Choc Ice
Apr 10th, 2011, 07:22 AM
OMG. :sobbing:

gentenaire
Apr 10th, 2011, 07:46 AM
If someone, who is physically healthy to live, wants to die, you have to understand, that in this case our regular rationale is no longer inapplicable. Such a person is no longer normal or mentally healthy, isn't it obvious?

It is obvious. In countries where these mentally unstable have easy access to guns, these kind of shootings occur more frequently. You can never really prevent it, no one has ever said that you can, but you can decrease the probability.

King Halep
Apr 10th, 2011, 11:19 AM
But we also know you liberals and your unique habits. Like turning to personal each time you ran out of arguments. And always when I see such post, when that happens, it is a nice thing to see, it is a defacto intellectual capitulation with signature and date.. :)

Trying to look like the victim? You already completely discredit yourself by bringing your political rubbish into a tragic event. You dont really care about the people. It is not possible to run out of arguments on gun control. One just has to look at the American situation as what not to follow.

ys
Apr 10th, 2011, 01:59 PM
It is obvious. In countries where these mentally unstable have easy access to guns, these kind of shootings occur more frequently.

Does it? One shooting, 23 victims in Netherlands. 16mln of population. Full gun control. USA, less gun control, 310 mln of population. 20 times. How many decades will it take in US for shootings to 460 victims?
Tine, your "obvious" is not as "obvious", as you want it to be. Where else did we have it just recently, within a couple of years? Finland, I believe?

If someone wants to kills oneself together with bunch of others, getting a weapon will be the smallest of concerns.

ys
Apr 10th, 2011, 02:06 PM
Trying to look like the victim? You already completely discredit yourself by bringing your political rubbish into a tragic event.
Look at thread here for any recent shooting, like the latest one in Arizona. See, how many posts does it take for your liberal friends to bring politics and gun control into the subject.


You dont really care about the people.


No, I think, you don't.

It is not possible to run out of arguments on gun control. One just has to look at the American situation as what not to follow.

As I said, everyone sees the situation one's own way. Once again, overwhelming majority of crimes happens with illegal guns. Why don't you suggest enforcing the existing law first.

And , unless I made it clear. I am not for gun freedom. I am not against it either. I am for Constitution. Which is a well defined law. With very well defined ways of changing it.

Betten
Apr 10th, 2011, 03:45 PM
Exactly

What's that supposed to mean?

gentenaire
Apr 11th, 2011, 05:52 AM
Does it? One shooting, 23 victims in Netherlands. 16mln of population. Full gun control. USA, less gun control, 310 mln of population. 20 times. How many decades will it take in US for shootings to 460 victims?
Tine, your "obvious" is not as "obvious", as you want it to be. Where else did we have it just recently, within a couple of years? Finland, I believe?

If someone wants to kills oneself together with bunch of others, getting a weapon will be the smallest of concerns.

Are you claiming that those kind of deaths are the only non-criminal firearm deaths?
US has a firearm death rate of 3.72/100.000, in the Netherlands it's 0.36/100.000 (though that number has just gone up with this incident).

ys
Apr 11th, 2011, 01:53 PM
Are you claiming that those kind of deaths are the only non-criminal firearm deaths?


Of course not, but the correlation is likely.


US has a firearm death rate of 3.72/100.000, in the Netherlands it's 0.36/100.000 (though that number has just gone up with this incident).

Sure. Now prorate that to an average national criminal rate. Or to per number of inmates per 100K.
You do understand, that we have the whole significant demographic pieces, with 25%+ percent of people with criminal record. It's incomparable to Netherlands, of course. And has very little, if anything, to do with gun legislation.

gentenaire
Apr 11th, 2011, 04:10 PM
Does it? One shooting, 23 victims in Netherlands. 16mln of population. Full gun control. USA, less gun control, 310 mln of population. 20 times. How many decades will it take in US for shootings to 460 victims?
Tine, your "obvious" is not as "obvious", as you want it to be. Where else did we have it just recently, within a couple of years? Finland, I believe?

If someone wants to kills oneself together with bunch of others, getting a weapon will be the smallest of concerns.

Okay, let's just talk mass shootings then:
Holland, 16 mill, 7 dead
USA, 310 mill, in order to be the same as Holland, it would be 135 dead. But so far 187 people have died in mass shootings in the US.

USA has more deaths from mass shootings/capita.

But you know very well that you can't really compare like that. If you'd compare the death rate from mass shootings in Columbine to that of Holland, you'd have a far higher rate/capita.

It makes more sense to compare regions of similar size. If you'd compare the USA to Western Europe, you end up with way way way more deaths from mass shootings. You cannot deny that it occurs more frequently in the US than anywhere else.

ys
Apr 12th, 2011, 03:03 AM
Okay, let's just talk mass shootings then:
Holland, 16 mill, 7 dead
USA, 310 mill, in order to be the same as Holland, it would be 135 dead. But so far 187 people have died in mass shootings in the US.


In how many years? Mass shooting is an acquired taste. Europe is getting there..
And 187 .. in 30 years? 6 an year? I think more people die on the streets of NY from cars every day. And out of all homicides in US?
0.1%? 0.01%? Nothing to talk about really.
Of course, when people get this angry at their government, like it is now, weak minds tend to unravel. But do you really think it is easier to shoot people, than to smash a car into a street crowd? As long as there is an idea, implementation will follow. If someone wants to take one's own life together with bunch of others, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
So many people die accidentally every day from all kinds of causes.. Like today, I was walking with my friend back to the office after having a lunch in a restaurant in West Village, and we stopped before crossing 7th avenue and kept talking.. Suddenly we heard a loud bang and after turning our heads we saw a taxi cab going away, and a body and pieces of some stuff rolling on intersection.. Turned out, the cab hit the rollerblader... Helmet was crushed to pieces, one of rollerblades was reduced to few pieces of plastic all the way to bare foot. And the guy was laying on the intersection in the fetus position. Clearly, at least unconscious..
At least one, possibly two lives were ruined by one small mistake in a fraction of a second. And this happens every day, many times. While we are having a mighty political discussion on changing Constitution to prevent one-nut-an-year mass shootings. Mind you. I am rollerblading to my work and back.. not by a street, but in Hudson River Park, where chances of being hit by a car are next to none. Still .. I was rolling back from my office, and it was very warm and nice, and the lane was full of runners, rollerbladers and cycling folks. Real traffic.. I kept thinking .. it takes just one idiot. Just one idiot. With his weapon of choice. Whether it is a gun or car or bike or whatever else. And it will be well enough to ruin your life and there is nothing you can do about it. Nothing.. That's life..

Kworb
Apr 12th, 2011, 08:56 AM
There was a mistake with his license. Given his psychiatric problems he should never have been allowed to even hold a gun. So in this case better gun control could have prevented this tragedy. He probably would've just jumped in front of a train.

njnetswill
Apr 12th, 2011, 07:09 PM
What people like ys don't understand is that the US Constitution is a living document. Our country used to define slaves as 2/5 of a person to determine state populations in order to apportion the number of representatives states receive in the House. There is no reason why the constitutional definition of the right to bear arms cannot adjust with the times as well.

Anyway, this thread is not about American politics, so :wavey:

ys
Apr 12th, 2011, 07:16 PM
What people like ys don't understand is that the US Constitution is a living document.


Please try to understand that US Constitution has a defined way to be changed. And there is no other way. I have no problem with US Constitution to be changed in identified order.

There is no reason why the constitutional definition of the right to bear arms cannot adjust with the times as well.

Please also try to understand that there is one single institution in this country that is qualified to interpret the Constitution. Not you, not me, not uncle Tony. Only SCOTUS. I also have no problem whatsoever with that.