A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

The last bit is relevant. NY is a "may issue" state, which means that the issuance of permits is at the discretion of law enforcement. Which typically means that they don't issue them except to law enforcement or actively employed private security (cause no one else has a "good cause" to have one). These are some of the most restrictive states.

Most states are "shall issue", which means that as long as the predefined conditions for the permit are met the state cannot deny a permit. But since conditions are set by law, they are often fairly strict, and usually require some form of training course be completed, proficiency test passed, background checks, fingerprints on file, etc.

Point being that for these states, which make up all but six of the states in the US, the average guy who just buys a gun at the corner store can't just walk around with his gun on him. So this fear that yahoos without skill or training or restraint would go in guns blazing and make things worse is relatively unfounded.

Of the remaining six states, four have no restriction, meaning anyone who can legally own a gun can legally carry it (there are some restriction which vary by state though). So if you happen to live in Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, or Vermont, anyone might be packing.

There are two states (um... sorta) with "no issue" laws. DC and Illinois.

If we're tossing out semi-random information...

Says who? I think there's 10 families in Newtown who would be more than happy if we'd manage to reduce the number of children who died from 20 to 10.



Because I don't want to get caught up in yet another semantic argument. Some nutter has already tried to make issue with the use of the word "prevent". Also, I don't want people trying to play games with the definition of "mass shooting". It's a tricky semantic situation when you have to carefully pick your words because you're posting on a forum where the slightest mistake, no matter how clear your intent was, will be taken out of context and twisted around.

If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to end a mass shooting, then folks like Joph will jump in with the Mother Jones study showing how few mass shootings end with armed civilian intervention. This is because a "mass shooting" is defined as a single shooting event in which there are 4 or more victim fatalities. So any intervention of an armed civilian which stopped the shooting short of 4 victim fatalities doesn't count as "ending a mass shooting".

If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to prevent a mass shooting (preventing 4 people from being killed and thus becoming a mass shooting in the first place), nutters like yourself will ignore the mass shooting definition Joph uses and argue in terms of shooting in general. You'll say that since it's unlikely for the armed civilian to be right there and stop the shooter before he can shoot anyone, he's therefore not going to be able to "prevent" the mass shooting.

I used the phrasing I did to try to avoid repeating the same silly semantic BS you guys keep tossing at me. Of course, even when I do this, someone like Lolgaxe will jump in with "but a reserve member of the military isn't a civilian!" argument. Sigh...



Stop saying "prevent a potential mass shooting". As I pointed out above, you're changing my words so as to create a strawman. It may reduce the number of fatalities in a mass shooting or potential mass shooting. Again, I'm using that language, not because it's concise, and not because it's necessary, but because there are a handful of posters here who are freaking idiots.

I've already answered this. To you directly IIRC. It's funny how you guys get pissed that repeat myself, but then you keep asking the exact same questions I've already answered (or continue to argue as though I'd never answered). There are multiple reasons:

1. Armed guards cost money. lessening restrictions on where people can concealed carry guns allow those people to be in any random area while costing us nothing.

2. Armed guards cannot be everywhere. Same deal. There's a chance of a person with a concealed carry gun being in any area at any time, as long as that area isn't one designated as as gun free zone.

3. Armed guards are obviously armed guards, so shooters will tend to start shooting where they are not (or shoot the guard first). A shooter can't know if there's someone with a concealed weapon nearby when he starts shooting, and even if he suspects there might be, he doesn't know who and thus can't really do anything to avoid them.

There are probably more reasons than that, but those are the first and most obvious 3 that just pop out at me.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 6:29pm by gbaji

Correct. Because real quantifiable terms with real data matter. Not just daydreams of all the shootings some random guy with a gun could have stopped or all the murders some other guy would have committed.


Because, again, you're just guessing and using daydreams and conjecture in lieu of any actual evidence. Like trying to use the recent mall shooting as evidence when absolutely none exists that the guy with the gun had any impact at all on what happened (in fact, a review of the events would suggest he had zero).

What if it was a civilian with a long rifle? Literally?

It really doesn't hurt my feelings that you're hellbent at pointing at a cat and screaming and flailing that it's an elephant. It's what kindergarteners do. My daughter occasionally does it, and I correct her too. Maybe you don't realize, but at some point it stops being cute. It starts appearing like a severe learning disability. I know the English language and facts are irrelevant to you, but some people do actually find them relevant when they're trying to present arguments. I'm humble enough to admit that I'm just far too great to be able to simply get over. I can try but I don't believe the outcome will turn me into the drooling mess of a lemming you're content with being.

Westroads.

Do you want me to pull at the strings of your little claim or you want to simply thank me for leaving it at that? Because, hoo are there some really big holes.

His head would explode in a spray of tears if he knew Meli was a security guard at that mall on his day off.

Yeah, I'm sorry. But you're going to have to have more than that before you bring a gun onto my kids campus. I don't particularly care if someone thinks they're responsible and well trained.

An armed guard or police/security officer is one thing, but that's entirely different. I'm less concerned about the rare mass shooting than I am about the more mundane gun crimes.



And a massive liability for the school district if something goes wrong. Lawyers will have a field day with this one. Worse than the good Samaritan who tries to do CPR and gets sued because they accidentally made the situation worse.



So what do we do for the rest?



The Clackmas shooter wasn't really within range to hit anyone after the first few shots either. From witness accounts he was also a pretty poor shot. Maybe if he targeted a group of kindergarteners trapped in a classroom he'd of had more luck.

As long as were making irrelevant comparisons... Linky.



Forget only two deaths. In a country with strict firearm regulations one has to resort to using a knife. The consequence? No one died. I'll repeat that no one died.

Obviously by that comparison the better method is to remove guns entirely.



Edited, Jan 25th 2013 9:02am by someproteinguy

Technically that is a solid position inside 20 ft a person with a knife holds an advantage over one with a gun.

Not without concealed knife safety courses.

What's shocking is that there wasn't a single gun-fu martial artist in that school.

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 11:37am by lolgaxe