U.S. President's gun violence reduction proposal

[HoosierGuy]

We really need to do something about gun shows.

[RipplecutBuddha]

We really need to do something about gun shows.

I agree. Monthly would be nice.

[Dravin]

I agree. Monthly would be nice.

Amen. Me and Beefche were tempted to go to the one in Indianapolis this weekend but after hearing about the long lines we opted not to.

[selek]

I'm ok with gates and armed guards.

Turning our schools into prison camps with metal detectors , barbed wire, tall fences, and security checkpoints has not reduced crime and violence in inner city schools in place like Detroit and Chicago.

They have, on the other hand, turned our children into prisoners in their own classrooms.

I think the potential for a gun accident would be much lower with people who literally have a job that requires guns.

The operative words there are "I think". Do we have any reason to believe that your opinion is anything other than ill-informed conjecture?

Proper fire-arms safety training is a must. I'm not aware of any data to suggest that those paid to carry weapons are any safer per se than a properly trained "amateur".

And schools really need more security. Case in point, when my husband moved out here a few years ago he went to my daughter's school to get her out of class for a dr. appt. The school let her go, with this person who was a total stranger to them and not on my list, with no question. Scary lol.

I agree whole-heartedly.

But "more security" means different things to different people.

This conversation needs to be ruled by facts and reason, not fear, emotion, ignorance, or a visceral reaction to inanimate objects.

Edited January 20, 2013 by selek

[selek]

What do you think about Obama's proposal to reduce gun violence released on January 16th?

In my considered opinion, Obama's proposals are a lot of smoke and mirrors, and would not have prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, or any of the other recent atrocities.

1. Closing background check loopholes

This idea is flawed on three grounds: first, the "loophole" is largely a fiction engendered by gun-control advocates and a compliant media. The "40%" figure the President and others are touting is a lie. The actual number is closer to 11%.

Moreover, fewer than 3% of the weapons used in violent assaults over the last fifty years were actually purchased at gun shows.

The vast majority of such weapons were stolen.

The second ground upon which this "proposal" is flawed is the lack of specifics. This administration and this president have been big of "doing something" about a lot of problems- but they never seem to get beyond vague generalizations until they are infringing upon people's rights.

The final ground upon which this "proposal" is flawed is that very infringement.

The Consitution guarantees us a number of inalienable rights. The right to bear arms. The right to be secure in our homes and our persons. The right to privacy and to be left alone (always a big one with the political Left) unless we are doing direct and immediate harm to others.

These proposals violate all of these rights. It limits (infringes) our right to bear arms. It limits our ability to protect our homes, our families, and our selves, and represents a considerable and not inconsequential intrusion of the government into what are inescapably private transactions.

Such infringement and intrusion are not without precedent: but in each case, it is incumbent upon the government to prove both that their actions serve a direct, overriding public interest and that the intrusion is the only way to serve that interest.

Neither Obama nor his fellow travellers have demonstrated either to be the case.

To the contrary, it is readily arguable that these "proposals" represent an unwarranted and indefesible intrusion for NO gain whatever.

2. Banning military style assault weapons and high capacity magazines

This is a foolish and puerile argument at best, arbitrarily classifying weapons based solely on their appearance, rather than upon their capacity or capability.

A pistol grip does not make a weapon more deadly, nor does a smaller magazine.

In point of fact, New York has limited gun owners to ten-round magazines for many years- without an appreciable decrease in gun violence.

There is no rationale reason to believe that reducing them to a seven-round magazine will have any direct or measurable effect on crime. It will, however, place additional and unreasonable limits on law abiding citizens.

By definition, laws do not deter criminals. It is only the law-abiding who will be affected by these proposals.

3. Making schools safer

Again, this is a nebulous term at best. And given that the money would serve only a tiny minority of schools across the country, there is little evidence that Obama's suggested fix is anything more than cosmetic.

4. Increasing access to mental health services

I believe this approach has the most merit and potential, but it also raises Constitutional concerns.

The Sandy Hook and Aurora killers were clearly and deeply deranged, but litigation and advocacy placed direct limits on the ability of the State to insitutionalize those individuals against their will*.

Where, then, is the dividing line to be drawn between a person's liberty, health, and the needs of the community at large?

As I stated earlier, these are serious issues that must be addressed carefully, thoughtfully and prudently.

And cosmetic fixes, knee-jerk resolutions passed in the dark of night, and equating gun rights advocates to mass-murderers are none of the above.

Indeed- one is forced to ask, if their "science" is sound, why are they so desperate to silence and demonize those who disagree with them?

* There is also a considerable amount of debate about how effective psychiatric treatment can be in cases such as these. It's NOT settled science. This, in turn, begs the question about under what conditions we incarcerate people in mental institutions against their will and under what conditions we release them.

Edited January 20, 2013 by selek

[Tough Grits]

I live in a VERY small rural town. Even so, I do NOT know every child's parents. I do not know which ones are divorced, which ones have restraining orders, or who the authorized people are to pick up anybody's child.

I say this because one day I got caught in the front office and had to help answer the phone. A parent wanted her child called to front office waiting for her so when she got there she could just quickly put her in the car and go. I politely told her that this could not be done over the phone and the she would need to come in herself and sign her daughter out.

Guess what? She got mad at me and became rude. I told her that I was sorry, but according to school policy she would have to come in. She hung up on me.

Now, either she really was the girl's mother and just could not comprehend that I was just doing my job and that she should be THANKFUL, or she was not the girl's mom and I did my job by preventing the unthinkable (which I highly doubt).

I have personally seen instances (MANY) in which the parents are the ones who cannot abide by the rules that we do have (basic as they may be) to ensure the safety of their children.

It is my opinion that many parents (in my system for sure, maybe other systems too) think that the schools are like fast food restaurants "Their Way Right Away".

They (meaning the parents in our system--not all, but enough to cause a problem) don't want the doors locked, they don't want to be inconvenienced when picking up or dropping off their child, but they want their child safe.

I don't know what the answer is. Locking classroom doors hasn't really helped, because students still come and go from the classroom all day long (bathroom, library).

I do not fear when I am at work. I stay vigilant. I trust that others are too. I would give my life to prevent somebody from hurting others in my school if it came down to it (in the heat of the moment I hope that I would do exactly as I say I would do), but basically I just go to work and pray that all will go according to God's will, and that He will give me the strength to handle whatever happens that day.

I was born and in raised in Miami. I have been around some interesting situations, to say the least. My high school had to be evacuated when I was in 9th or 10th grade because of a gun shoot-out between two rival gangs...on or near our campus. I guess I learned that we have to do our best to be vigilant and safe, but we cannot be afraid of living our lives either.

I am not afraid or ashamed to admit that I don't know what the answer is. It is my opinion that guns are not the problem, but evil or mentally ill people that take any weapon to harm an innocent person are the problem. Is that a fair statement?

[Tough Grits]

By definition, laws do not deter criminals. It is only the law-abiding who will be affected by these proposals.

Would it be fair to say that this one statement is what lies at the heart of the matter?

All the laws in the world will not stop violence. Remember Cain and Abel?

Cain didn't have a gun, but he committed the first recorded murder in scripture.

So, if this is true...then why is our government trying to get "tougher" on guns? Four years from now, what will our gun laws look like?

I have a question, because I am sincerely curious, is this simply a democratic stance...or is this the beginning of worse things to come? I know nobody has a crystal ball, I am just wondering what others think.

[Smudge]

As someone who doesn't live in the USA I am intrigued!

In the UK we have very strict gun control which was tighten further after Dunblane (13 Mar 1996) those controls were further tighten and we haven't had a school shooting since.

We don't have security guards or metal detectors in our schools although some high schools do have a policeman assigned to them,

I also don't understand the arguement that putting more guns into schools is the solution.

[selek]

In the UK we have very strict gun control which was tighten further after Dunblane (13 Mar 1996) those controls were further tighten and we haven't had a school shooting since.

Not a school shooting, no- but neither are your schools violence free. (We're not going to get into what your medical system regularly does to the elderly, the infirm, and the otherwise helpless).

Contrary to the popular myth, Britain with its restrictive gun laws, is NOT appreciably or measurable safer than the United States.

In point of fact, you have higher per capita rates of home invasion robberies and violent assaults than does the United States by a substantial margin.

The only aspect of criminal behavior where you have the advantage is in actual gun violence.

Yes, you have largely disarmed your subjects (note subjects, not citizens)- but you have singularly failed to rid your society of violence.

In our country, breaking into an occupied home is an extraordinarily rare event. If memory serves (and I cheerfully admit that I may be misremembering), home invasion robberies are three times more common in Britain than in the United States.

I also don't understand the arguement that putting more guns into schools is the solution.

I believe you are misrepresenting the arguments put forth here.

No one is saying more guns in school is "the" answer.

But it is certainly one worth considering.

If you wish to be well-informed on this issue, you need to watch both videos.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Just for perspective, let's look at this on a global scale. On the Discovery channel years ago, a retired Soviet general was interviewed. He was part of a group responsible for planning a potential ground invasion of the US, should WWIII break out. Thankfully, for both sides, it did not happen. However the gentleman that was interviewed said that his task was one that kept him and his group awake in the dead of night, and they never came up with a unified, workable plan. The one comment he made that stuck with me was this;

"How do you conquer a nation where every citizen is armed?"

Think of it. Most americans that own firearms are fairly experienced at using them. Certainly hunters, sports shooters, and the like are highly skilled. Hunter-safety courses are all but universally mandated, and sports shooters, well, skill and discipline are part of the goal there as well. With personal defense classes widely available to teach people how to safely carry a concealed weapon and use it when necessary, the pool of armed, and skilled Americans is growing all the time. What nation would do well against us in a ground attack?

Now...scale that down to cities, neighborhoods, streets, and homes. It is a rare home invader that would have a clue how to respond to a loaded 12-gauge shotgun in the face without being shot or arrested.

What we need to get away from is blaming the tool for the act. If banning firearms is the answer to the school shootings we've had, then banning aircraft should have been the reaction to 9-11, and banning cars should have been the answer to DUI deaths decades ago!!

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Guns, knives, baseball bats, bow and arrow. Take one tool away, another will take its place. We need to get a grip on the people doing this, not their weapons. The gun did exactly what it was designed to do. The person holding the gun decided what it was aimed at. The only sure way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by using a good guy with a gun.

And now I'm off the box

[Blackmarch]

I want to know if #2 applies to the military as well or if it only applies to public sales.

All i've heard regards the civilian use. I'd be very surprised if any of htis applies to the military. And i think a lot of what Obama wants needs to happen to some degree or another- however i fear for how he'll want it implemented, but more than that i fear that there are too many votes that are dead set against any measure of gun restriction of any sort, no matter how necessary they would be.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Blackmarch

[Blackmarch]

Just for perspective, let's look at this on a global scale. On the Discovery channel years ago, a retired Soviet general was interviewed. He was part of a group responsible for planning a potential ground invasion of the US, should WWIII break out. Thankfully, for both sides, it did not happen. However the gentleman that was interviewed said that his task was one that kept him and his group awake in the dead of night, and they never came up with a unified, workable plan. The one comment he made that stuck with me was this;

"How do you conquer a nation where every citizen is armed?"

Think of it. Most americans that own firearms are fairly experienced at using them. Certainly hunters, sports shooters, and the like are highly skilled. Hunter-safety courses are all but universally mandated, and sports shooters, well, skill and discipline are part of the goal there as well. With personal defense classes widely available to teach people how to safely carry a concealed weapon and use it when necessary, the pool of armed, and skilled Americans is growing all the time. What nation would do well against us in a ground attack?

Now...scale that down to cities, neighborhoods, streets, and homes. It is a rare home invader that would have a clue how to respond to a loaded 12-gauge shotgun in the face without being shot or arrested.

What we need to get away from is blaming the tool for the act. If banning firearms is the answer to the school shootings we've had, then banning aircraft should have been the reaction to 9-11, and banning cars should have been the answer to DUI deaths decades ago!!

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Guns, knives, baseball bats, bow and arrow. Take one tool away, another will take its place. We need to get a grip on the people doing this, not their weapons. The gun did exactly what it was designed to do. The person holding the gun decided what it was aimed at. The only sure way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by using a good guy with a gun.

And now I'm off the box

Guns are as much part of the equation as people are. change either and you change the outcome. guns will always kill more than they will save; that is what they are designed to do. Nor will the ratios change much; increase the pool of weapons, and weapon related events will rise - of offense, defense, accidental, and suicide. decrease the pool of weapons and numbers of such incidents will also shrink.

The only sure way stopping anyone from doing something is killing them, whether its a criminal, politician, activist, boss, etc... the only exception i'm aware of has been christ. ... And theres more options than just guns if you are seeking to kill people.

It might be prudent however not to rush such a judgement quite yet.

And yes cars have been banned.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Blackmarch

[RipplecutBuddha]

Guns are as much part of the equation as people are. change either and you change the outcome.

Look at England, which has banned guns totally. Nearly triple the level of home invasion and assault than here in the US. Yes, nearly none of it involves firearms, however three times more criminal acts are being committed. I do not see this as an improvement. Just in this example alone, guns deter crime by the mere potential consequences.

guns will always kill more than they will save; that is what they are designed to do.

Guns do not kill. Guns do not kill. Guns do not kill. People with guns kill. People with knives kill. People with crossbows kill. Prisoners with anything that can be sharpened kill. People with cars kill. People with baseball bats kill. People with commercial aircraft and boxcutters kill. (9-11 for the clearest explanation of that last one)

A gun is an inanimate object with no will/conciousness of its own. Guns are designed to fire bullets in one direction. The person holding the gun is responsible for determining what is in the path of that direction. It is the individual in control of the weapon that is accountable for what the weapon does, not the weapon itself.

Nor will the ratios change much; increase the pool of weapons, and weapon related events will rise - of offense, defense, accidental, and suicide. decrease the pool of weapons and numbers of such incidents will also shrink.

You'd think so, but again, in England such is simply not the case. Look at Australia for a similar example. Sure the number of crimes committed with that weapon have dropped dramatically, however the overall crime rate has risen dramatically. So apparently it's a question of what you want; No gun crime, or no crime at all. By looking at these two studies, you cannot have both. These two nations also display the fact that guns most often act as a deterrent to crime. Let me re-phrase this for you. the potential of the criminal facing a firearm while in the act of a commission of a crime plays a direct role in that criminal's decision to carry out said crime. The lower the potential, the higher the risk of the crime being realized.

The only sure way stopping anyone from doing something is killing them, whether its a criminal, politician, activist, boss, etc... the only exception i'm aware of has been christ.

This is true, but it misses the point. I'm not concerned with preventing someone from acting out on their own free will. I am concerned with protecting innocent victims that have nearly no defense against an armed assailant, such as Sandy Hook. Not one weapon was available to defend those children....until law enforcement arrived...with guns. The 'Gun Free Zone' ensured the shooter would face little meaningful resistance, which is exaclty what he wanted. The shooter was already viloating gun laws. What new laws would have stopped him?

... And theres more options than just guns if you are seeking to kill people.

This is exactly my point. Take the guns away, and another weapon will replace them, as you mentioned above. The pool of weapons won't change so much as the weapons in the pool. There will still be weapons used. Remove the deterrent of facing a firearm in response to violent crime, and more violent crime will be committed, just like in England and Australia.

It might be prudent however not to rush such a judgement quite yet.

So in the meantime, ban firearms anyway? Not being snide, sincerely asking.

And yes cars have been banned.

When have cars been banned? I own one. My boss owns five. Banning firearms means nobody can have one in their homes anymore.

[Guest gopecon]

Would it be fair to say that this one statement is what lies at the heart of the matter?

All the laws in the world will not stop violence. Remember Cain and Abel?

Cain didn't have a gun, but he committed the first recorded murder in scripture.

So, if this is true...then why is our government trying to get "tougher" on guns? Four years from now, what will our gun laws look like?

I have a question, because I am sincerely curious, is this simply a democratic stance...or is this the beginning of worse things to come? I know nobody has a crystal ball, I am just wondering what others think.

To the question of criminals ignoring laws, so why add more? I don't think that anyone who says this is questioning the legitimacy of laws against murder, assault, theft, etc. It is just a bit silly to think that more laws would help to stop someone who is intent on doing terrible things. A prime example is NY toughening the restriction on having guns near schools. Have those types of laws ever deterred someone who wanted to go to a school to do far worse than just have a gun? They just keep the law abiding from being there to do something about the bad guys who don't care about the gun-free zone.

[Tough Grits]

This is true, but it misses the point. I'm not concerned with preventing someone from acting out on their own free will. I am concerned with protecting innocent victims that have nearly no defense against an armed assailant, such as Sandy Hook. Not one weapon was available to defend those children....until law enforcement arrived...with guns. The 'Gun Free Zone' ensured the shooter would face little meaningful resistance, which is exaclty what he wanted. The shooter was already viloating gun laws. What new laws would have stopped him?

Yes. And if there was an "Amen" button, I would have clicked it twice for the last two sentences of this quote.

[Tough Grits]

To the question of criminals ignoring laws, so why add more? I don't think that anyone who says this is questioning the legitimacy of laws against murder, assault, theft, etc. It is just a bit silly to think that more laws would help to stop someone who is intent on doing terrible things. A prime example is NY toughening the restriction on having guns near schools. Have those types of laws ever deterred someone who wanted to go to a school to do far worse than just have a gun? They just keep the law abiding from being there to do something about the bad guys who don't care about the gun-free zone.

I agree completely. So, why can't others see this?

Driving while drunk, intoxicated, under the influence, and otherwise impaired is against the law, but every year people break this law and unfortunately every year innocent people are injured or killed.

Ban alcohol? Ban cars? Not likely.

As has been said, there will always be people who use their agency at the expense of the agency of others.

I feel that your agency ends where mine begins, but stricter gun laws and eventually a "no guns" law will prevent me from protecting and ensuring my agency.

[NeuroTypical]

Politicians need to be seen as 'doing something'. Legislators can only legislate - it's the only thing they can do. Executives have to lead - they can't legislate - so they need to be seen as leading or proposing legislation.

*shrug*

[Blackmarch]

Look at England, which has banned guns totally. Nearly triple the level of home invasion and assault than here in the US. Yes, nearly none of it involves firearms, however three times more criminal acts are being committed. I do not see this as an improvement. Just in this example alone, guns deter crime by the mere potential consequences.

Sure a gun is discouraging when it comes to mind.. but generallly it comes to mind only when they are looking down its barrell.

I'd take 50 home break-ins and robberies over 1 mass killing any day. Id take facing knives and bats and sharp pointy objhects 5-10 times over a gun, especially if its user has a few braincells to know how to use it.

And how often does a person over england go on a 20 person killing spree at a school with a knife, bat or bow and arrow?

Guns do not kill. Guns do not kill. Guns do not kill. People with guns kill. People with knives kill. People with crossbows kill. Prisoners with anything that can be sharpened kill. People with cars kill. People with baseball bats kill. People with commercial aircraft and boxcutters kill. (9-11 for the clearest explanation of that last one)

My apologies, your right. its lack of blood and oxygen to the brain and/or heart that kills. my bad.

What possibly could i have been thinking. Obviously the bullet, gun, and etc.. have no part to play in the situation at all.

A gun is an inanimate object with no will/conciousness of its own. Guns are designed to fire bullets in one direction. The person holding the gun is responsible for determining what is in the path of that direction. It is the individual in control of the weapon that is accountable for what the weapon does, not the weapon itself.

so are bullets, anthrax, nukes, grenades, mortars, artillery, mustard gas, AGMs, going with the logic thats being used here all these things should be legalized and be allowed to be owned by the civillian population as well.

You'd think so, but again, in England such is simply not the case. Look at Australia for a similar example. Sure the number of crimes committed with that weapon have dropped dramatically, however the overall crime rate has risen dramatically. So apparently it's a question of what you want; No gun crime, or no crime at all. By looking at these two studies, you cannot have both. These two nations also display the fact that guns most often act as a deterrent to crime. Let me re-phrase this for you. the potential of the criminal facing a firearm while in the act of a commission of a crime plays a direct role in that criminal's decision to carry out said crime. The lower the potential, the higher the risk of the crime being realized.

Please note I said change the outcome not reduce total amount of crime. What you said would seem to support that. If i wanted to drastically reduce total amount of crime i'd vote for some sort of totalitarian regime that would use draconian measures in monitoring and punishing crime.

so why hasnt crime decreased dramatically in area where its legal to own firearms? as for england I keep seeing differrent numbers so currently thats up in the air for me. Aso do we have any good numbers that can conclusively tie these trends or causes of these trends to the ownerhip or (lack thereof) of guns? A lot of the stuff I see fail investigate other causes.. You might have a point there, or it may be that the increase in crime could be due to other factors more than just guns being in (or not in as in this case) the equation

From what i understand there still a lot of study that needs to go into this.

over there almost every time i'm seeing criminal cop action thats recorded over there there is rarely ever a gun show up (governmental conspiricy with the news agency)?

and most of the crimes I do see tend to be ones where guns wouldnt have made any difference (car theft has really gone up dunno how much that contributes to the crime data tho).

This is true, but it misses the point. I'm not concerned with preventing someone from acting out on their own free will. I am concerned with protecting innocent victims that have nearly no defense against an armed assailant, such as Sandy Hook. Not one weapon was available to defend those children....until law enforcement arrived...with guns. The 'Gun Free Zone' ensured the shooter would face little meaningful resistance, which is exaclty what he wanted. The shooter was already viloating gun laws. What new laws would have stopped him?

where did the sandy hook shooter say that he targeted the sandy hook school because it was a gun free zone (or more specifically a combat rifle free zone)? I seem to recall he targeted it because of certain individuals that were at that school. Or at least thats what the investigation concluded.

there were armed guards at columbine. that didnt stop the shooters

at the other school shooting after sandy hook an unarmed teacher stopped the shooting, so that instead of there being 3 killed there were only 2.

whether a "gun-free" zone is in place or not hasnt seemed to be much of an influence as to whether a perp chose to go there or not.

Gun protection is a false security. The best you can get is damage control- stopping a problem from possibly becoming a bigger one. If you want to protect, then you have to make it difficult or as close to as impossible for an individual or object to be able to inflict that damage.- For schools, redesign how they are built, and how they are run, and that will be a lot more effective than putting trained guns on the premises. (some areas may require both)

the laws aren't designed to stop them, they designed to reduce the perps effectiveness when such instances occur.

This is exactly my point. Take the guns away, and another weapon will replace them, as you mentioned above. The pool of weapons won't change so much as the weapons in the pool. There will still be weapons used. Remove the deterrent of facing a firearm in response to violent crime, and more violent crime will be committed, just like in England and Australia.

Except that deterrent doesnt work when someobody is set on something at least until they can see that they are about to be mutilated, shot, electrocuted, etc... And supposing that such individuals are still at a point where they might care about themselves to some degree.

And if they had brains the first thing they would do is remove potential sources of harm/retaliation. (and yes if they had more braincells they wouldnt do it in the first place, guns or not)

The considering that they might be the recipient of bodily harm thereof does not stop a lot of crime at all (and the thought doesn't cross their minds much from the interviews I've seen).

so lets make grenades, RPGs, mortars, SM-AAMs legal and availble to the civilian public too, because obviously the bad cuys don't abide the law and will use them anyways. While were at it lets throw in nukes for the ultra rich ones.

Because aparently the only way to stop a bad guy is to use it first on them.

So in the meantime, ban firearms anyway? Not being snide, sincerely asking.

No i'm saying that using a gun should not be the first or even second recourse for solving a problem. Even if such a recourse is justifiable.

Umm Are you aware that its not a ban for all guns (unless its been changed within the last week or so, that i'm not aware of as I really don't follow the news with particular zeal) ?

whats going on isn't to ban guns, its to start reducing the ones that available that are far more effective and designed for killing people than others. So that instead 30 people being slaughtered in one go, its 5 or ten, or at least less instances of it.

However I would support a specific type of ban; yes, the banning the sell of high powered combat rifles to the public is a sensible move. Putting pressure on private ownership of such weapons to get them out of the public is also good (doing so in a manner that would be just would be harder tho).

Having a registry like how cars are registered and etc.. is also a sensible move.

Unless by some magic means criminals have somehow gained an immunity to not as high powered rifles, rifles with less rounds, less rate of fire, hand guns and etc...

Currently the biggest chink thhe argument is what assault rifle defines.

When have cars been banned? I own one. My boss owns five. Banning firearms means nobody can have one in their homes anymore.

Banning can range from banning the sales, banning carrying them in public, or owning. Might help to be a little more specific.

so when was the last time you took took one of these down the highway?

Interestingly enough life didn't end, and we had all our other cars that are legal. Perhaps there might be some conspiracy somewhere.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Blackmarch

[Guest gopecon]

"where did the sandy hook shooter say that he targeted the sandy hook school because it was a gun free zone (or more specifically a combat rifle free zone)? I seem to recall he targeted it because of certain individuals that were at that school. Or at least thats what the investigation concluded.

there were armed guards at columbine. that didnt stop the shooters

at the other school shooting after sandy hook an unarmed teacher stopped the shooting, so that instead of there being 3 killed there were only 2.

whether a "gun-free" zone is in place or not hasnt seemed to be much of an influence as to whether a perp chose to go there or not." - Blackmarch

I had to respond to a couple of your points. The Sandy Hook shooter is dead - he didn't say much about what he did. That said, I think the only mass public shooting in the last 30 years that was not in a "gun free" zone was the Gabby Giffords shooting. These guys may be crazy, but that doesn't mean they are totally irrational. Making something a gun free zone lets criminals know that they will be highly unlikely to be resisted - at least until the police get there.

About Columbine, the armed guards at the school were able to engage the thugs. While it was a horrible day, it would likely have been much worse if there was not someone there with a gun to slow them down.

[NeuroTypical]

Columbine changed the way police responds to shootings. Before Columbine, training and procedure was "stay put and call for reinforcements". After Columbine, it's all about rapidly engaging the shooter even if there's just two of you, because just disrupting can stop the body count from growing.

And people try shootings in and out of gun-free zones. It's just that they get to kill many more people in a zone than out of one.

(It makes me sad to say it, but today's shooting at the Texas college? Gun-free zone.)

[RipplecutBuddha]

I can't see how I can be more clear on my points. The people actually committing the act of violence are the cause of the shootings. Not the guns. It's not the fault of the four handguns used at Sandy Hook that so many deaths occured. It is the shooter that will have to stand before Christ and account for that day, not the weapons.

How many times are mass killings done with knives, bows and arrows? Just a few months ago here in Casper Wyoming a man stabbed his mother to death, went to the college where his father taught, shot him with a crossbow, then used his knife to kill himself. China has had a rash of adults attacking schoolchildren with knives. Why knives? Because personal gun ownership is banned in China.

Cities and counties are increasingly posting signs at their borders that their citizens are armed. Why would they do that if it weren't an effective deterrent? Imagine you're a burgler rolling into a new town and the sign at the city limits says "Welcome to Hometown USA, Our citizens carry concealed weapons, and use of firearms for home defense is encouraged.".

Now, as a burgler, will you risk trying some of those homes, or would you peacefully roll on to the next town?

quote:

so are bullets, anthrax, nukes, grenades, mortars, artillery, mustard gas, AGMs, going with the logic thats being used here all these things should be legalized and be allowed to be owned by the civillian population as well.

You didn't read the second sentence of my reply. None of those items can, on their own, harm anyone if untouched. This is the point I have repeatedly made that you keep skirting around; It takes a concious willful decision to make any weapon actively lethal. It requires a person who decides to use the item as a weapon. Accountability cannot be laid at the feet of a tool that is incapable of independant action of any kind.

You keep blaming guns as the problem rather than the concious, willfully acting individual holding the gun. I said it before, but the person who acted will stand to account for what they did, not their sword, gun,bullets, anthrax, nukes, grenades, mortars, artillery, mustard gas, AGMs, or ICBMs.

Because of this, banning guns will not reduce crime. It will change the statistics here and there, but the willful acts will continue, with different weapons. If you can accept that, that's fine. Me? I'm going to meet any threat with whatever force is necessary. If that means a gun in their face, so be it. I didn't tell them to come try to break into my home, or assault my family, or whatever the case may be. However I will not stand by and helplessly let them act out their evil choice.

They have agency to choose evil. I have agency to act to stop it.

[Backroads]

I'm just getting the impression that all these laws will just make people feel better. "Well, at least this horrible murder wasn't committed with a gun."

[talisyn]

So the question is, what will stop mentally ill people from shooting other people?

[Vort]

So the question is, what will stop mentally ill people from shooting other people?

Gun laws! Everyone knows that mentally ill people won't shoot others if there are gun laws prohibiting it!

[selek]

I think this sums up Vort's argument quite nicely, don't you?