I never said there was anything wrong with it. I just point out that your plan, in the best of conditions, means a certain number of dead people is an acceptable outcome, even when you claim it is not.

 

How do I claim it is an acceptable outcome? The only acceptable death would be the death of the murderous psychopath trying to inflict mass carnage for no good reason.

 

Not liking something and not accepting something are two different things.

It's not reasonable to say your plan insures the death of the shooter and no one else. This means in any likely scenario, people will die and this is an acceptable outcome.

 

Instead of gun free zones, how about we just have bad guy free zones...
Here's your sign...
Would work as well as what we are doing now.

 

I recommend to let them keep shooting each other until the entire country is done away with. No one cares and Americans are useless anyway.

 

Both creating and abolishing gun free zones are fruitless as a form of stopping these types of attacks, you can tell people that going into one of these zones with a weapon will get them in jail but if they have already decided that they were going to commit one of these atrocities the laws do not matter. Adding new laws will not stop it either. One step to making these instances rare would be by simply not allowing those that are not competent to have a firearm, if anyone else helps them to get their hands on a firearm they should be charged equally with every crime that the killer commits. Same as these kids that get their hands on a parents weapon, charge the owner of the firearm. Start educating kids on firearm safety, make people learn about safety before they are allowed to buy any guns. Require owners to take 8 hours of safety training every 2 years to retain their weapons, the classes would be for to the public and paid for by fines and fees paid by people that get ticketed for improper storage and transport of a firearm. If a convicted felon is found in possession of a firearm they should be locked away forever with a complete loss of all rights as a citizen. If someone has their weapon stolen and does not report it they should be held fully liable for what that weapon is used for. Just enforce the laws on the books and start doing the mental health checks before selling anything to anyone, hell even cops should be checked.

 

Nonsense, 98.8% of this Nations population are good in nature, there has not been and never will be a perfect scenario for a 100% ''safe/secure'' zone, yet, it sure is odd that when gun ownership raised in percentages, the violent gun related deaths dropped.

Criminals prey on the weak, Criminals rely on surprise attacks, there will always be criminals, violent and non-violent alike, it doesn't actually matter, what does matter is the capacity of society to be able to defend/protect themselves, when defending and protecting themselves becomes regulated, now, that does matter.

 

This is a good demonstration of accepting. There will always be mass shootings and we need to get used to it.

 

More gun laws sure won't cut it! Look at Chicago for example. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet it is one of the most dangerous places in the country. You would think Obama would know that being that's where he's from and all. The places in this country with the strictest gun laws are the most dangerous. On the other hand take a place like Vermont, very gun friendly, and according to the federal governments own statistics it is very safe. It's common sense. If you're going to rob a business are you going into the one where you know the owner may be armed, or the one with the gun free sign on the door? I think the answer is obvious.

 

If you are going to rob a business, you go into the one with the most money. If you know the owner is armed, shoot him before he has a chance to shoot first. It's not that complicated.

More gun laws will not cut it because we will not allow gun laws which could actually make a difference. Any gun law which could keep guns out of the hands of disturbed sad young men, would also keep them out of the hands of people who have dead aim in a dark theater full of screaming people. Our desire to be the guy who gets to shoot back, prevents us from considering effective gun laws.

The only purpose our current gun laws serve is to be held up as proof that gun laws don't work.

Everybody keeps talking about Vermont and all their guns, but no one wants to talk about the calming effects of maple syrup.

 

What are effective gun laws?

 

Strange how it doesn't seem to work out that way.

But, thank ou, you are beginning to reveal your true colors.

 

I didn't come here to hide anything. If you missed it the first time, don't worry. Nothing is going to change.

Effective gun laws would remove handguns from everyone except law enforcement and licensed security professionals. Long guns would be restricted to people with valid hunting licenses.

You and I know this is never going to happen. Even though it's an impossibility, the fear of it will keep guns sales high. There is something about owning a gun which is comforting and the thought of losing that comfort really upsets a lot of people. They go out and buy more guns, on the slightest rumor. After every mass shooting, they all think, "Maybe this is the one that makes the difference." It never does. Even so, there's a whole industry dedicated to getting as much money as possible out of gun owners and business is good.

This is just reality. No Dirty Harry "do ya punk?" fantasies, no Charles Bronson movie bullshit. We like our guns and we are going to keep them. This means criminals and crazy people(with no criminal record and are legally entitled to have a gun) will always have a gun and continue to shoot people. Nothing's going to change. We'll keep being a nation of people who pat that inconspicuous bulge that no one notices and say to our self, "If I had been there, it would have been different."

That's the way we want it.

 

Who is we you are a minority not the majority if you don't like how the country is run I suggest you move this is a republic where majority rules not the minority if you want to voice your opinions without fact move I suggest Mexico Canada Australia or the UK there's a lot of idiots just like you in those countries I rather be free than you ruled

 

Reading this I am thinking that you must be Aussie or English. Here is the reality, their "gun crimes" numbers are misleading at best dishonest at the truest because they only count a crime in that list if it is successfully prosecuted, they do not count the crimes that the criminals are never put on trial. You do know that last year alone 5 times more people were killed with knives than guns(as based on FBI statistics)? Also did you think about the fact that the US is 3rd on the list of nations with the highest populations? Only China and India are above us, Australia and England are not even in the top 10 for 2015.
To do anything close to what Australia did would require the confiscation of about 100 million firearms from only about 1/3 of the population in the US, can you imagine the fall out? I would say a full out war. I will never hand mine over willingly. Then there has to be the cash to pay those people for the weapons, so let's see 100million pieces at say a conservative $250/per, who pays for it??????Will you unass that $25billion?
Then there are the untold numbers of unreported crimes in those nations that involve guns. We already have problems with criminals, just imagine if they knew that more people were not armed.

 

How would taking hand guns from everyone but police be effective? What will that do other than ensure the only people that have handguns are police and criminals?

 

Just because what I say makes you squirm, doesn't mean it's not a fact. But, don't worry. No one is coming to take your guns. It's plain to see you are happy with the status quo, just as everyone else is. This means nothing is going to change. We are going to continue to have mass shootings and everyone is fine with that.

It doesn't really matter why. If you want to be free and not ruled by confusing pronouns, that's as good a reason as any.

 

Why are you arguing against something I said would never happen?

 

You didn't answer my question. How would taking hand guns away from lawful owners reduce gun violence?

 

Committing a crime with a gun is one of the fastest ways to become an unlawful gun owner. To reduce gun violence, guns would have to be removed from the lawful and the unlawful. There is a belief that it is impossible to remove guns from criminals, probably because criminals are better at hiding their guns better than lawful people.

You and I both know it's not going to happen, so arguing that it won't work, or that it's not possible, is a waste of effort. That means we(that's me an you, white man) have accepted the status quo. The status quo means that criminal, the mentally ill, and children have easy access to guns. There will continue to be spree killings by sad boys who think the girls don't like him.

There is an alternative. Since people kill people, not guns, maybe we could eliminate criminals and the mentally it. Eliminating children has long term consequence. That sounds harder than eliminating guns.

Looks like we're back to waiting for the next shooting and hoping there is a concealed carrier close by, who makes a correct split second and doesn't make things worse.