I've refrained from comment on yesterday's Munich terror attack until details became clearer, because there was a lot of confusion. However, enough has now been cleared up that we can begin to make sense of it.
First off, a lot of reports are referring to it as a 'shooting' or 'mass murder'. They're afraid to use the T-word. 'Terrorism' is becoming a politically incorrect description, as these two articles show. Personally, I think any reporter or news media eschewing that word for politically correct reasons is the epitomy of hypocrisy, cowardice and moonbattery, but I suppose they're not interested in my opinion . . . In the same light, the BBC initially dropped the shooter's first name, 'Ali', from its reports on the tragedy, presumably trying to hide his Islamic or Middle Eastern connections. Moonbats indeed!
Next, we're told that the shooter was fixated on mass shootings, in particular the massacre perpetrated by neo-Nazi Anders Breivik in Norway in 2011. He also claimed (to a bystander during the shooting) that he had been 'bullied for seven years'. I don't find that surprising; Turkish migrant workers in Germany have complained about racist abuse and bullying for decades. If this young man was the child of Iranian refugee parents, as has been reported, he'd have looked very similar to a Turk, and would probably have attracted the same unwelcome attention. However, not many people commit mass murder as a result of bullying! He's reported to have had psychotic tendencies for which he'd received treatment. If those reports are true, then they probably contributed to his last, lethal explosion of anger at the bullying.
Therefore, I don't think we can ascribe this incident to fundamentalist Islamic roots. It's more likely to have been a single, psychotic explosion of violence. That doesn't make it less tragic, of course . . . or less of a terrorist act.
The one thing that struck me very forcibly about this attack was how easy it would have been for an armed citizen to stop the terrorist in his tracks, before he'd killed so many people. Consider this video, showing the perpetrator opening fire on passersby.
Any of those running in panic could have sought cover and fired back, if they'd been armed. Others nearby (not shown in this particular video) could have done the same. Anyone who says that armed civilians could not have prevented this attack, or stopped it, is lying to you. Any competent shooter could have dealt with the terrorist.
The corollary to that is: if, after all the terror attacks in recent weeks and months, you aren't carrying a gun as you go about your daily routine . . . for heaven's sake, why not? Do you want to be a helpless victim? Do you want to have to see your spouse and children shot in front of you because you couldn't stop their murderer? Get a gun, learn how to use it effectively, get a concealed carry permit if one is available to you - and then carry your gun and be prepared to use it!