hessenjunge

The linked interview has one(!) offhand comment by Abram de Swaan about the alleged practise. The interview is in part to promote his book “The Killing Compartments: The Mentality of Mass Murder.” which of course features Nazi Germany quite a bit. So I went ahead and downloaded said book. The words 'dog', 'puppy' ,or 'pet' are mentioned zero times in the entirety of the book.

Trying to find the book and more sources for the allegation I came up with nothing else.

While "SS-Troops" (idiotic generalisation in this case) like the SS-Totenkopfverbände did many fucked up thinks and would be fucked up enough to feature the alleged dog killings in their training - there is so far no proof whatsoever.

If this were the case it would be in every other movie about WW2. It's in Kingsmen FFS, where the good guys do this as part of their training.

Sorry, I have to call BS on this one.

The linked interview has one(!) offhand comment by Abram de Swaan about the alleged practise. The interview is in part to promote his book “The Killing Compartments: The Mentality of Mass Murder.” which of course features Nazi Germany quite a bit. So I went ahead and downloaded said book. The words 'dog', 'puppy' ,or 'pet' are mentioned zero times in the entirety of the book.

Trying to find the book and more sources for the allegation I came up with nothing else.

While "SS-Troops" (idiotic generalisation in this case) like the SS-Totenkopfverbände did many fucked up thinks and would be fucked up enough to feature the alleged dog killings in their training - there is so far no proof whatsoever.

If this were the case it would be in every other movie about WW2. It's in Kingsmen FFS, where the good guys do this as part of their training.

Sorry, I have to call BS on this one.

Initial answer when the comment had nos source: Source: Trust me bro.

The linked interview has one(!) offhand comment by Abram de Swaan about the alleged practise. The interview is in part to promote his book “The Killing Compartments: The Mentality of Mass Murder.” which of course features Nazi Germany quite a bit. So I went ahead and downloaded said book. The words 'dog', 'puppy' ,or 'pet' are mentioned zero times in the entirety of the book.

Trying to find the book and more sources for the allegation I came up with nothing else.

While "SS-Troops" (idiotic generalisation in this case) like the SS-Totenkopfverbände did many fucked up thinks and would be fucked up enough to feature the alleged dog killings in their training - there is so far no proof whatsoever.

If this were the case it would be in every other movie about WW2. It's in Kingsmen FFS, where the good guys do this as part of their training.

Sorry, I have to call BS on this one.

You’re comparing apples to Nazis.

ELI5 for the intellectually challenged downvoting this:

Apple: Ea-nāṣir - one random dude c. 1750 BCE.

Nazis: The OG Nazis 1933 - 1945 that murdered millions of people.

The comparison is incredibly stupid. You might just as well liken a speck of dust to a planet.

That’s because it never happened. If it had you’d definitely have heard about it.

Walking through a metal detector will sort that out, no need to remove shoes, etc.

When you compare EU/rest of the world security screening to US ones the farce becomes obvious. Next they’re going to require a half striptease “for security”.

You are trying beyond all reason to misinterpret what 'reasonable person' means and in extension what can reaonably be called securely locked. It's gotten pretty outlandish.

The document you linked is a very interesting read as it takes stock of currently existing law and attempts to clear up question you might have about implementation. It states as such in several places on page 1. Page 4 indeed clears up what can be considered what a 'reasonable person' or 'average Joe' has to do to properly store a weapon.

Since you also attack the legal concept of 'reasonable person': The reasonable person is a hypothetical individual who exercises average caution, care, and judgment in their conduct.

So unless there's a lot of lead in the water, the average person would not leave keys to a lockbox that contains valuables or dangerous items that allows someone else, let alone an 8yo have access to it.

• reasonable person | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.
• Reasonable Person Standard: Legal Definition & Examples.
• Reasonable Person legal definition of Reasonable Person.
• reasonable person Definition, Meaning & Usage | Justia Legal Dictionary.
• reasonable | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.

definition "steps a reasonable person would make" includes "in a locked container."

No, it’s not. The locked container is just one of the examples for steps a reasonable person could take. The emphasis of the wording is clear.

The way in which you try to twist the wording is another display of bad faith arguing.

No reasonable person considers a box locked or secure when the keys are right next to it.

You would not consider your money safe in a lockbox under the same condition.

Arguing otherwise is quite obviously bad faith.

… to take steps that a reasonable person would take …

How is that a step a reasonable person would take?

And how would that be a reasonable interpretation of the law?

The law defines secure as follows:

46.13 3)

“Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.

How do you see the described situation matching that description?

Which of these apply to the situation needs to be decided by a court, right?

Let’s try a different situation: the loaded gun is locked up in a cupboard. The child knows about the gun and the key. The key is easily accessible to the child.

Do you think the law applies in this case?