No, not all by itself. What means more is the absence of apparent security.
Security with guns?
I try to give reasons for my suggestions. For example, high capacity clips are not useful for hunting. The are, however, used a lot in these mass shootings. I do not even want good people protecting me with such a weapon. Friendly fire is just as deadly as deliberate fire. If a good member of the NRA wants 100 rounds to stop an active shooter, I would rather wait for someone with greater skill.
You may not agree, but it is a suggestions with reasons.
No, I don’t agree. Guns aren’t just for hunting. They are also for self defense. The police don’t carry small magazines in their AR-15s. It isn’t a question of being a good shot.
Yes. Guns used by actual security personnel. What all the pro-gun people have been dancing around, but not quite willing to commit to is the claim that unofficial citizens with guns, freed from the restrictions of a gun-free zone, will provide this security and deterrent to mass shooters. Needless to say, I do not agree with that claim, if anyone should care to make it.
Yeah, if some home invader invades your home, call a protester.
Most police do not carry AR-15s, and militarizing the police is a separate issue. But yes, it is a question of being a good shot in an active shooter situation. Spray and pray doesn’t work too well in a crowd or in a school. Also, no police will ever carry a weapon without extensive supplemental training with that weapon. How police are armed has nothing to do with what a citizen should be able to buy.
I’m all in favor of armed security.
What about schools? Where would the money come from? How about training teachers?
I’m not going to offer solutions to every problem. I was commenting on gun free zone designations.
Good for you. It seems local communities are capable of coming up with solutions. Obviously, gun free zones don’t work. Armed guards is a good start
Or … other signs could be posted … “Beware of the gun carrying occupants of this building”.
The key is the signs … the signs:
Use appropriately worded signs.
cars and trucks have also been used by fanatics to murder people in mass slaughters, and we already have vehicle control measures to prevent the unstable from getting a drivers license. But what about people who fall inbetween the cracks? How about a private citizen selling their personal vehicle to another person? Are they responsible for doing a thorough background check on that person to see if they can even sell the vehicle to them … or else any damage they do with that vehicle they bought, falls back on the person who sold them the car?
Where does this go and how far does it go?
The ‘right’ as I read it does not suggest anyone be allowed to carry in these historical gun free zones.
A k-12 school might allow a trained teacher to conceal carry, not students. Bars would still have the right to restrict concealed carry.
Regarding the USCCB and their opinions on gun control, they really add nothing to the conversation beyond implying that their positions are somehow more moral than the opposing ones. For a less stale look at the problem, however, we might consider this as an alternative:
Though we seem to be plunging ever deeper into a dark night, researchers now have a far clearer view of a key factor in the violence. A long-standing theory has matured into a body of evidence that can no longer be dismissed: The level of attention paid to mass shootings is central to why they keep happening.
The idea that some crimes might be self-spreading, like a disease, was proposed as early as 1890, when the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde labeled murders copying Jack the Ripper “suggesto-imitative assaults.” For mass shootings, the effect was well known among researchers by the early 2000s, when a wealth of information allowed forensic psychiatrist Paul E. Mullen to conclude, “These massacres are acts of mimesis, and their perpetrators are imitators.” (Essay by Ari Schulman, Wall Street Journal 11/18/17)
Perhaps instead of trying to control those who are not contributing to the problem we should find ways of dealing with those who are.
I will keep those “implied opinions that are somehow more moral than the opposing ones” in mind when I read the USCCB’s opinions on abortion, birth control and gay marriage. It makes no sense to argue with you gun guys,-- you cling to your guns and your interpretation of your religion, no matter how much is shown to you about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of your position. Jesus himself could walk into the room and tell you to put your guns away and you would just claim it’s just a guy with a beard in a bathrobe.
Except that there has been no hypocrisy or inconsistency shown on the individual rights side position.
You have just proven my point. But it doesn’t matter. Happy Thanksgiving!
If your point was a rhetorical comment with no facts behind it, I can understand why you’d think that.
A blessed Thanksgiving to you, as well
I guess there is hope for this forum yet.