Arming teachers bad cus in Parkand a singlular example exists of a cowardly RO not doing job, WTF?

[2aguy]

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

Just curious here.

Would you want restaurant employees, bar employees, theater employees, etc. to have weapons on them? You know, to make those locations more secure in the event of an attack.

I would. But they too need to get rid of their gun free zone status. If a place is known to allow customers and staff to carry guns, bad guys don't target them.

Facts do not support you, again......

We know the Colorado theater shooter chose the one theater in the Area that had a no guns allowed policy....

We also know that many states already allow people to carry guns not only in regular businesses but also in Bars....Like Virginia that passed this law a few years ago..and what happened? Crime in their bars went down...

Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



When Virginia passed a law allowing concealed carry in bars and alcohol-serving restaurants beginning July 1 of last year, opponents of the change decried the dangers of mixing guns and alcohol, for fear violent crimes would escalate.

But one year later, the Richmond Times-Dispatch did a study to see if the gloomy prognostications came true.

According to state police records, not only did gun violence in bars and restaurants not increase under the new law, it decreased by 5.2 percent.

In fact, of the 145 reported crimes with guns that occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11 (compared to 153 incidents in the year before the new law took effect), only two of the aggravated assault cases were related to concealed-carry permit holders. In one incident, the crime took place at a restaurant that didn’t serve alcohol – thus unrelated to the new law – and in the other, the weapon was neither discharged nor withdrawn from its holster.

“The numbers basically just confirm what we’ve said would happen if the General Assembly changed the law,” Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the Times-Dispatch. “Keep in mind what the other side was saying – that this was going to be a blood bath, that restaurants will be dangerous and people will stop going. But there was nothing to base the fear-mongering on.”


Read more at Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



More.....actual research by Richmond Times-Dispatch

Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

--------------------------

At The Times-Dispatch's request, state police pulled from their computerized database all major crimes at bars and restaurants reported by local law-enforcement agencies across Virginia for two successive fiscal years. The Times-Dispatch then contacted more than a dozen police departments in Virginia for more detailed information on all aggravated assaults, homicides and sexual assaults involving firearms at those businesses.
Reported robberies were not analyzed because they tend to involve premeditated crimes by perpetrators openly displaying guns, and many of the affected businesses are chain restaurants that don't serve alcohol.
Only two fatal shootings occurred during the last fiscal year — one outside a Petersburg nightclub and the other at a Radford restaurant — but neither involved concealed-gun permit holders. And only two of the 18 aggravated assaults reported could be linked definitively to concealed-carry holders.
Several other cases appear to have involved hidden guns, but the suspects either didn't have a concealed permit, or they fled the scene before they could be identified and arrested.
One of the few unambiguous cases of a concealed-gun permit holder breaking the law occurred on July 28, 2010 — 27 days after the law became active — at a deli in York County. In that case, a patron who had been drinking heavily with a gun concealed in his pocket allegedly sexually harassed a female waitress and, at one point, placed his hand over his hidden gun so the waitress could see its outline.
After making a comment the waitress construed as a threat, the man left but was stopped a short time later by police. They recovered a .380-caliber pistol from his pants pocket and charged him with driving under the influence, brandishing a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon.
He was charged with the latter offense — even though he had a permit to carry the gun — because he had been drinking in the deli while in possession of a concealed firearm. The law forbids concealed-gun permit holders to drink alcohol while they are inside bars and restaurants with guns hidden from view. Patrons who legally carry firearms openly into bars and restaurants can drink freely.
Authorities confiscated the man's concealed-gun permit, but the brandishing and concealed weapon charges were eventually withdrawn by prosecutors. He was convicted of driving while drunk.
In another case closer to home, a Hopewell man with a concealed-carry permit was arrested in June after police said he brandished a gun in the parking lot of a chain restaurant after a verbal dispute escalated into a fight among several patrons. No shots were fired, but punches were thrown.
Although the man pulled a concealed weapon during the fight, the new law didn't really apply because the restaurant where the incident occurred doesn't serve alcohol. The man was convicted last month of brandishing the gun — which he appealed — and a malicious-wounding charge was certified to a Hopewell grand jury.
Aside from the two homicides, the only assault that resulted in a person being shot occurred in February outside a Virginia Beach restaurant and bar. The shooting followed an altercation inside the restaurant. Several unknown men were asked to leave, and the victim was shot and wounded as he walked toward a male in an adjacent parking lot, police said.
But because the suspect was never identified and arrested, police don't know whether the shooter was carrying a concealed gun or whether he had a permit to carry it.

 

[captkaos]

Arming teachers is bad because it's a bad idea, not because of one particular incident.

Even some conservatives think it's a dumb idea.

Rubio breaks with Trump, doesn't support arming teachers

Look, suppose we arm a bunch of teachers. They're carrying out their class, trying to teach a bunch of kids, while carrying a firearm. What do you think is more likely to happen?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.

This isn't going to go over like some Hollywood movie of a Language Arts teacher going commando and, against all odds, taking out the Colombine assholes. This is just going to result in a lot of really, really dumb and unnecessary accidents. These are TEACHERS. Not SWAT officers. I honestly think you're just going to compound the problem.

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student

Sutherland, Texas shooter....stopped by a "private citizen" armed with an AR-15.
Private citizens armed with AR-15's have stopped criminals in their own homes.
Hundreds of thousands of armed private citizens have stopped criminals armed with stolen firearms.
As for schools, all a teacher with no firearms training needs is a safety class and some regular practice at the range.

Great, it's not like armed citizens have ever accidentally shot themselves or people around them, right?

So honestly, which one do you think is more likely if we were to have several armed teachers who took these safety classes?

A) A psychotic shooter comes in. Teacher steps in, shoots the intruder and saves the day.
B) The gun is discharged accidentally.​

Kids don't need anymore stress in their lives. Going to school shouldn't come with the threat of death, accidental or Intentional. Or ever having to witness death!! Parental Involvement is needed here. Live surveillance to identify threats, tip line for students to report anonymously , Physical searches of Lockers and Common areas for contraband or other issues I believe it requires more commitment from Parents and students to help make schools safer. Not poo pooing away any rumor or actual threat is huge.

 

[captkaos]

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced legislation three times (in 2007, 2009, and 2011) that would have allowed teachers to carry guns on pubic high school and middle school campuses, but his efforts failed each time.

The last being H.R. 2613 (112th): Citizens Protection Act of 2011

Anyone who is seriously interested in promoting the idea of arming teachers properly would do well to read the language of the statesman's legislation. It's pretty good, and in the interest of salvaging students' civil liberties, as all of his legislation historically was.

I'm afraid any legislation we might get from the GOP today would be full of all sorts of tyrannies against our students and tax paying parents. I've heard mention of attaching other stipulation to any recent proposed bills, like committing students and parents to become involuntary victims of unwarranted, unconstitutional, searches in the school. We don't want that.

Parents are the ones who should be Standing up for safety and "Demanding frequent Random searches of school property for contraband and threats to student safety".. Kids don't have Civil rights after they get killed in school by a psycho!! Get it !! Better to be a little invasive then to have to clean the blood off the floors. Just sayin !

 

[Natural Citizen]

Parents are the ones who should be Standing up for safety and "Demanding frequent Random searches of school property for contraband and threats to student safety".. Kids don't have Civil rights after they get killed in school by a psycho!! Get it !! Better to be a little invasive then to have to clean the blood off the floors. Just sayin !

How about we abolish the DOE and call it even. It's a complete failure. And it's unconstitutional.

 

[XponentialChaos]

We have 40,000 vehicle related deaths every year too, does that mean we should ban cars?

If you make guns illegal, it won't stop the bad guys from getting them.

Well so much for not using bumper sticker slogans in your responses.

Thanks anyway.

 

[XponentialChaos]

And yet actual truth, facts and reality show you are wrong....

As we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense to 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense....gun murder went down 49%. You pick out a few stories, claim they represent something important, and then the truth, facts and reality show you don't know what you are talking about....

Ok I'll play along.

Gun murder also went down since gun-free zones were implemented.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have 40,000 vehicle related deaths every year too, does that mean we should ban cars?

If you make guns illegal, it won't stop the bad guys from getting them.

Well so much for not using bumper sticker slogans in your responses.

Thanks anyway.

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan®.

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Now that we finally have that super important detail hammered out, maybe we can get back to the point. Don't guns make places safer? If so, then why would they not be allowed while Pence is on stage?

Maybe you should read more replies before posting. I already explained this to you.

I don't see it in the last few pages. Maybe I missed it?

Go ahead. What's your answer?

It's simple. In school, nobody is talking about anybody carrying a gun, especially strangers. We are talking about specific people such as security or selected teachers who are licensed and trained to handle a gun.

When the President or VP speaks, they are potential targets. So you can't let strangers carry firearms because some kook may make an assassination attempt. However in those cases, the place is loaded with SS and other agencies who are armed. In other words, we know who is armed and who is not.

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

wrong..... there are lots of guns in there.....as he pointed out the SS and police. When the Vice President isn't there, those cops and SS go with him. A gun free zone attracts mass shooters...we know this from actual research, actual statements from mass shooters and from their notes..... this is a fact, you can't lie about it.

You guys seriously need to have a meeting and figure out the definition of a "gun-free zone". Some conservatives here are saying that it means there are no guns at all. Other conservatives are saying that it means that only law enforcement/security can carry guns there.

I'm cool with whatever definition you guys collectively decide. But Jesus, figure it out already. With as much time as you guys spend talking about "gun-free zones", you'd think you guys would at least know what they are. This shouldn't be this difficult.

Get back to me and let me know what you decide.

 

[XponentialChaos]

We have 40,000 vehicle related deaths every year too, does that mean we should ban cars?

If you make guns illegal, it won't stop the bad guys from getting them.

Well so much for not using bumper sticker slogans in your responses.

Thanks anyway.

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan®.

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

Ok good. Now tell us what the only thing is that stops a bad guy with a gun and I'll have bingo.

 

[XponentialChaos]

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

Just curious here.

Would you want restaurant employees, bar employees, theater employees, etc. to have weapons on them? You know, to make those locations more secure in the event of an attack.

I would. But they too need to get rid of their gun free zone status. If a place is known to allow customers and staff to carry guns, bad guys don't target them.

Facts do not support you, again......

We know the Colorado theater shooter chose the one theater in the Area that had a no guns allowed policy....

We also know that many states already allow people to carry guns not only in regular businesses but also in Bars....Like Virginia that passed this law a few years ago..and what happened? Crime in their bars went down...

Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND

So you're saying that having lots of guns in that situation would NOT make it safer. Correct?

You're saying that making it a "gun-free" zone would make it MORE safe. Correct?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. What are you getting at?

Just find it interesting that we were able to come to an agreement.

There are times where "gun-free zones" are beneficial. There are times where more guns do not make locations safer.

This is true because in the general public, we don't have dozens of highly trained government agents protecting every bar, restaurant, alley, street corner or theater. If we could afford that, nobody would need a gun except for at home unless we had such agents in every household.

But the truth is in the general public, the police only come after somebody has been attacked and there is not much they can do about it except to arrest the killer; by then, it's way too late for the victim.

In gun free zones, not only is there no protection from attackers, but nobody is armed to defend themselves which makes those areas attractive to those that do want to commit mass murder. In most instances, gun-free zones are much more dangerous than places where you can conceal carry.

Just curious here.

Would you want restaurant employees, bar employees, theater employees, etc. to have weapons on them? You know, to make those locations more secure in the event of an attack.

I would. But they too need to get rid of their gun free zone status. If a place is known to allow customers and staff to carry guns, bad guys don't target them.

Facts do not support you, again......

We know the Colorado theater shooter chose the one theater in the Area that had a no guns allowed policy....

We also know that many states already allow people to carry guns not only in regular businesses but also in Bars....Like Virginia that passed this law a few years ago..and what happened? Crime in their bars went down...

Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



When Virginia passed a law allowing concealed carry in bars and alcohol-serving restaurants beginning July 1 of last year, opponents of the change decried the dangers of mixing guns and alcohol, for fear violent crimes would escalate.

But one year later, the Richmond Times-Dispatch did a study to see if the gloomy prognostications came true.

According to state police records, not only did gun violence in bars and restaurants not increase under the new law, it decreased by 5.2 percent.

In fact, of the 145 reported crimes with guns that occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11 (compared to 153 incidents in the year before the new law took effect), only two of the aggravated assault cases were related to concealed-carry permit holders. In one incident, the crime took place at a restaurant that didn’t serve alcohol – thus unrelated to the new law – and in the other, the weapon was neither discharged nor withdrawn from its holster.

“The numbers basically just confirm what we’ve said would happen if the General Assembly changed the law,” Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the Times-Dispatch. “Keep in mind what the other side was saying – that this was going to be a blood bath, that restaurants will be dangerous and people will stop going. But there was nothing to base the fear-mongering on.”


Read more at Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



More.....actual research by Richmond Times-Dispatch

Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

--------------------------

At The Times-Dispatch's request, state police pulled from their computerized database all major crimes at bars and restaurants reported by local law-enforcement agencies across Virginia for two successive fiscal years. The Times-Dispatch then contacted more than a dozen police departments in Virginia for more detailed information on all aggravated assaults, homicides and sexual assaults involving firearms at those businesses.
Reported robberies were not analyzed because they tend to involve premeditated crimes by perpetrators openly displaying guns, and many of the affected businesses are chain restaurants that don't serve alcohol.
Only two fatal shootings occurred during the last fiscal year — one outside a Petersburg nightclub and the other at a Radford restaurant — but neither involved concealed-gun permit holders. And only two of the 18 aggravated assaults reported could be linked definitively to concealed-carry holders.
Several other cases appear to have involved hidden guns, but the suspects either didn't have a concealed permit, or they fled the scene before they could be identified and arrested.
One of the few unambiguous cases of a concealed-gun permit holder breaking the law occurred on July 28, 2010 — 27 days after the law became active — at a deli in York County. In that case, a patron who had been drinking heavily with a gun concealed in his pocket allegedly sexually harassed a female waitress and, at one point, placed his hand over his hidden gun so the waitress could see its outline.
After making a comment the waitress construed as a threat, the man left but was stopped a short time later by police. They recovered a .380-caliber pistol from his pants pocket and charged him with driving under the influence, brandishing a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon.
He was charged with the latter offense — even though he had a permit to carry the gun — because he had been drinking in the deli while in possession of a concealed firearm. The law forbids concealed-gun permit holders to drink alcohol while they are inside bars and restaurants with guns hidden from view. Patrons who legally carry firearms openly into bars and restaurants can drink freely.
Authorities confiscated the man's concealed-gun permit, but the brandishing and concealed weapon charges were eventually withdrawn by prosecutors. He was convicted of driving while drunk.
In another case closer to home, a Hopewell man with a concealed-carry permit was arrested in June after police said he brandished a gun in the parking lot of a chain restaurant after a verbal dispute escalated into a fight among several patrons. No shots were fired, but punches were thrown.
Although the man pulled a concealed weapon during the fight, the new law didn't really apply because the restaurant where the incident occurred doesn't serve alcohol. The man was convicted last month of brandishing the gun — which he appealed — and a malicious-wounding charge was certified to a Hopewell grand jury.
Aside from the two homicides, the only assault that resulted in a person being shot occurred in February outside a Virginia Beach restaurant and bar. The shooting followed an altercation inside the restaurant. Several unknown men were asked to leave, and the victim was shot and wounded as he walked toward a male in an adjacent parking lot, police said.
But because the suspect was never identified and arrested, police don't know whether the shooter was carrying a concealed gun or whether he had a permit to carry it.

When Virginia passed a law allowing concealed carry in bars and alcohol-serving restaurants beginning July 1 of last year, opponents of the change decried the dangers of mixing guns and alcohol, for fear violent crimes would escalate.

But one year later, the Richmond Times-Dispatch did a study to see if the gloomy prognostications came true.

According to state police records, not only did gun violence in bars and restaurants not increase under the new law, it decreased by 5.2 percent.

In fact, of the 145 reported crimes with guns that occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11 (compared to 153 incidents in the year before the new law took effect), only two of the aggravated assault cases were related to concealed-carry permit holders. In one incident, the crime took place at a restaurant that didn’t serve alcohol – thus unrelated to the new law – and in the other, the weapon was neither discharged nor withdrawn from its holster.

“The numbers basically just confirm what we’ve said would happen if the General Assembly changed the law,” Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the Times-Dispatch. “Keep in mind what the other side was saying – that this was going to be a blood bath, that restaurants will be dangerous and people will stop going. But there was nothing to base the fear-mongering on.”


Read more at Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



More.....actual research by Richmond Times-Dispatch

Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

--------------------------

At The Times-Dispatch's request, state police pulled from their computerized database all major crimes at bars and restaurants reported by local law-enforcement agencies across Virginia for two successive fiscal years. The Times-Dispatch then contacted more than a dozen police departments in Virginia for more detailed information on all aggravated assaults, homicides and sexual assaults involving firearms at those businesses.
Reported robberies were not analyzed because they tend to involve premeditated crimes by perpetrators openly displaying guns, and many of the affected businesses are chain restaurants that don't serve alcohol.
Only two fatal shootings occurred during the last fiscal year — one outside a Petersburg nightclub and the other at a Radford restaurant — but neither involved concealed-gun permit holders. And only two of the 18 aggravated assaults reported could be linked definitively to concealed-carry holders.
Several other cases appear to have involved hidden guns, but the suspects either didn't have a concealed permit, or they fled the scene before they could be identified and arrested.
One of the few unambiguous cases of a concealed-gun permit holder breaking the law occurred on July 28, 2010 — 27 days after the law became active — at a deli in York County. In that case, a patron who had been drinking heavily with a gun concealed in his pocket allegedly sexually harassed a female waitress and, at one point, placed his hand over his hidden gun so the waitress could see its outline.
After making a comment the waitress construed as a threat, the man left but was stopped a short time later by police. They recovered a .380-caliber pistol from his pants pocket and charged him with driving under the influence, brandishing a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon.
He was charged with the latter offense — even though he had a permit to carry the gun — because he had been drinking in the deli while in possession of a concealed firearm. The law forbids concealed-gun permit holders to drink alcohol while they are inside bars and restaurants with guns hidden from view. Patrons who legally carry firearms openly into bars and restaurants can drink freely.
Authorities confiscated the man's concealed-gun permit, but the brandishing and concealed weapon charges were eventually withdrawn by prosecutors. He was convicted of driving while drunk.
In another case closer to home, a Hopewell man with a concealed-carry permit was arrested in June after police said he brandished a gun in the parking lot of a chain restaurant after a verbal dispute escalated into a fight among several patrons. No shots were fired, but punches were thrown.
Although the man pulled a concealed weapon during the fight, the new law didn't really apply because the restaurant where the incident occurred doesn't serve alcohol. The man was convicted last month of brandishing the gun — which he appealed — and a malicious-wounding charge was certified to a Hopewell grand jury.
Aside from the two homicides, the only assault that resulted in a person being shot occurred in February outside a Virginia Beach restaurant and bar. The shooting followed an altercation inside the restaurant. Several unknown men were asked to leave, and the victim was shot and wounded as he walked toward a male in an adjacent parking lot, police said.
But because the suspect was never identified and arrested, police don't know whether the shooter was carrying a concealed gun or whether he had a permit to carry it.

Sorry bud. If I had the impression that you could follow a coherent line of reasoning, I'd be more inclined to actually look at this pile of "research" that you obviously found on a right-wing website.

Not interested.

 

[XponentialChaos]

We have 40,000 vehicle related deaths every year too, does that mean we should ban cars?

If you make guns illegal, it won't stop the bad guys from getting them.

Well so much for not using bumper sticker slogans in your responses.

Thanks anyway.

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan®.

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

Why make anything illegal then? Why have any laws at all if "bad people" will always find a way to break those laws anyway?

 

[2aguy]

And yet actual truth, facts and reality show you are wrong....

As we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense to 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense....gun murder went down 49%. You pick out a few stories, claim they represent something important, and then the truth, facts and reality show you don't know what you are talking about....

Ok I'll play along.

Gun murder also went down since gun-free zones were implemented.

Mass shooters who have been captured, and from the notes when they are killed state they target gun free zones. Since mass public shootings are a tiny number of the over all gun murder rate....barely 75 people murdered by mass public shooters in any given year vs. the 11,004 murdered by other criminals...... gun murder by other criminals going down is more relevant than mass public shooters. And the remedy for those few public shooters is to end gun free zones.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have 40,000 vehicle related deaths every year too, does that mean we should ban cars?

If you make guns illegal, it won't stop the bad guys from getting them.

Well so much for not using bumper sticker slogans in your responses.

Thanks anyway.

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan[emoji768].

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

Why make anything illegal then? Why have any laws at all if "bad people" will always find a way to break those laws anyway?

Laws restrict and control most from committing crime, however those laws have no negative affect on law abiding citizens. Making laws against guns do. A rapist will always rape and a thief will always steal. Laws penalize those people when they commit such crimes without penalizing the average citizen at the same time.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[XponentialChaos]

And yet actual truth, facts and reality show you are wrong....

As we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense to 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense....gun murder went down 49%. You pick out a few stories, claim they represent something important, and then the truth, facts and reality show you don't know what you are talking about....

Ok I'll play along.

Gun murder also went down since gun-free zones were implemented.

Mass shooters who have been captured, and from the notes when they are killed state they target gun free zones. Since mass public shootings are a tiny number of the over all gun murder rate....barely 75 people murdered by mass public shooters in any given year vs. the 11,004 murdered by other criminals...... gun murder by other criminals going down is more relevant than mass public shooters. And the remedy for those few public shooters is to end gun free zones.

Did gun murder go down after gun-free zones were implemented or not?

 

[XponentialChaos]

We have 40,000 vehicle related deaths every year too, does that mean we should ban cars?

If you make guns illegal, it won't stop the bad guys from getting them.

Well so much for not using bumper sticker slogans in your responses.

Thanks anyway.

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan[emoji768].

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

Why make anything illegal then? Why have any laws at all if "bad people" will always find a way to break those laws anyway?

Laws restrict and control most from committing crime, however those laws have no negative affect on law abiding citizens. Making laws against guns do. A rapist will always rape and a thief will always steal. Laws penalize those people when they commit such crimes without penalizing the average citizen at the same time.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

You're doing a whole lot of tap-dancing here. Let's simplify this.

If a rapist is going to rape regardless of what the law says, then why do we have laws against rape?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have 40,000 vehicle related deaths every year too, does that mean we should ban cars?

If you make guns illegal, it won't stop the bad guys from getting them.

Well so much for not using bumper sticker slogans in your responses.

Thanks anyway.

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan[emoji768].

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

Why make anything illegal then? Why have any laws at all if "bad people" will always find a way to break those laws anyway?

Laws restrict and control most from committing crime, however those laws have no negative affect on law abiding citizens. Making laws against guns do. A rapist will always rape and a thief will always steal. Laws penalize those people when they commit such crimes without penalizing the average citizen at the same time.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

You're doing a whole lot of tap-dancing here. Let's simplify this.

If a rapist is going to rape regardless of what the law says, then why do we have laws against rape?

Well imagine the society we'd have if we didn't. Rapist will always rape but for those considering the crime, the law is a deterrent.

It's like the legalization of pot. In Colorado, more teens in school are smoking pot and the usage of it expanded. Police have had more problems with driving under the influence. While pot has always been a misdemeanor (except large amounts for sale) people who considered smoking pot now do.

In other words, laws won't stop all people, but it stops enough of them to have some control. Now how does that relate to guns?

We have around 300 gun laws in this country; mostly on a federal level. Then there are state, county and even city laws on the books. This fallacy that guns are virtually unregulated is merely a leftist talking point. And with those laws comes those who will break them, although it's a nice thought that most will obey the laws.

So felons still illegally carry firearms. People still drink alcohol and illegally carry firearms. People who cannot legally buy a firearm get their hands on firearms. And people who do get firearms legal or not will use them for nefarious plots.

What you are alluding to is that if we somehow made firearms illegal in this country, it would stop most people from having firearms. This is true, it would. However the majority of those who would then be disarmed are law abiding people. Most of the people who won't listen to the laws are within the criminal circle. So in the end, what you would virtually have is an unarmed society and an armed criminal element.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And yet actual truth, facts and reality show you are wrong....

As we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense to 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense....gun murder went down 49%. You pick out a few stories, claim they represent something important, and then the truth, facts and reality show you don't know what you are talking about....

Ok I'll play along.

Gun murder also went down since gun-free zones were implemented.

Mass shooters who have been captured, and from the notes when they are killed state they target gun free zones. Since mass public shootings are a tiny number of the over all gun murder rate....barely 75 people murdered by mass public shooters in any given year vs. the 11,004 murdered by other criminals...... gun murder by other criminals going down is more relevant than mass public shooters. And the remedy for those few public shooters is to end gun free zones.

Did gun murder go down after gun-free zones were implemented or not?

That's a ridiculous question because before states started to implement CCW laws, everyplace was a gun-free zone. Gun free zones came up because most places became a gun permissible zones after adopting CCW laws.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Well so much for not using bumper sticker slogans in your responses.

Thanks anyway.

Bumper sticker slogans? How about comparisons?

Recreational narcotics have been illegal my entire life. Yet today, we have record amounts of OD deaths in the US. Even more that have been saved with new drugs such as Narcan[emoji768].

The reason we got rid of alcohol prohibition is that it didn't work and ended up killing more people from manufactured alcohol by amateurs.

The bottom line is that no matter what you make illegal, if it's a desired product, the bad people will always get them. It only stops good people from getting them.

Why make anything illegal then? Why have any laws at all if "bad people" will always find a way to break those laws anyway?

Laws restrict and control most from committing crime, however those laws have no negative affect on law abiding citizens. Making laws against guns do. A rapist will always rape and a thief will always steal. Laws penalize those people when they commit such crimes without penalizing the average citizen at the same time.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

You're doing a whole lot of tap-dancing here. Let's simplify this.

If a rapist is going to rape regardless of what the law says, then why do we have laws against rape?

the law is a deterrent.

Ding ,ding, ding!!! We have a winner!!! Laws regarding guns act as deterrents just like laws regarding rape. Get it now?

Regarding making guns illegal, I never proposed that and I honestly don't know how that even came up. You went into bumper sticker slogan auto-pilot arguing against something that nobody is proposing.

 

[XponentialChaos]

And yet actual truth, facts and reality show you are wrong....

As we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense to 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense....gun murder went down 49%. You pick out a few stories, claim they represent something important, and then the truth, facts and reality show you don't know what you are talking about....

Ok I'll play along.

Gun murder also went down since gun-free zones were implemented.

Mass shooters who have been captured, and from the notes when they are killed state they target gun free zones. Since mass public shootings are a tiny number of the over all gun murder rate....barely 75 people murdered by mass public shooters in any given year vs. the 11,004 murdered by other criminals...... gun murder by other criminals going down is more relevant than mass public shooters. And the remedy for those few public shooters is to end gun free zones.

Did gun murder go down after gun-free zones were implemented or not?

That's a ridiculous question because before states started to implement CCW laws, everyplace was a gun-free zone. Gun free zones came up because most places became a gun permissible zones after adopting CCW laws.

I was just using his reasoning against him. He's arguing that murder rates went down when more guns were purchased.

Well, murder rate also went down since gun-free zones were established. Get back to me when you guys can establish a cause/effect relationship. Otherwise I'm just going to use your same ridiculous reasoning against you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And yet actual truth, facts and reality show you are wrong....

As we went from 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense to 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense....gun murder went down 49%. You pick out a few stories, claim they represent something important, and then the truth, facts and reality show you don't know what you are talking about....

Ok I'll play along.

Gun murder also went down since gun-free zones were implemented.

Mass shooters who have been captured, and from the notes when they are killed state they target gun free zones. Since mass public shootings are a tiny number of the over all gun murder rate....barely 75 people murdered by mass public shooters in any given year vs. the 11,004 murdered by other criminals...... gun murder by other criminals going down is more relevant than mass public shooters. And the remedy for those few public shooters is to end gun free zones.

Did gun murder go down after gun-free zones were implemented or not?

That's a ridiculous question because before states started to implement CCW laws, everyplace was a gun-free zone. Gun free zones came up because most places became a gun permissible zones after adopting CCW laws.

I was just using his reasoning against him. He's arguing that murder rates went down when more guns were purchased.

Well, murder rate also went down since gun-free zones were established. Get back to me when you guys can establish a cause/effect relationship. Otherwise I'm just going to use your same ridiculous reasoning against you.

No, as I pointed out, murder rates went down as gun-free zones were diminished. If a state had no CCW program, then then entire state was a gun-free zone. After they adopted a CCW program, a fraction of that state became a gun-free zone; let's say 20% (an arbitrary number).

So 100% gun-free zone, murder and gun crimes were up. 20% gun-free zone, murder and violent crimes decreased. The argument you are trying to make is working against you in numbers.