Yet another mass shooting...

[Katy]

Good to know people not killed in public don't count when considering our homicide rates. Whew!

 

We weren't discussing homicide rates.  We were discussing not getting shot in public by strangers.

 

 

ETA:  Straw man argument.  You might want to look that up.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Katy

[6packofun]

We average a mass shooting every day.

 

Does Japan have this problem? England? Sweden, Finland, Canada? No, they don't.Of course they don't! We all know it. The US is the only developed nation where this regularly happens. So I don't know about you, but I think it's worth looking into what all those other places do differently from us. And if the answer is that they were able to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, then surely we can do it too.

 

I think one obvious difference that is rarely talked about is that many of the countries "without a gun problem" are islands or island-like (Scandinavia...and you left out Australia, another island).  And then you've got Canada with one border and that border ain't Mexico.  So controlling guns coming into the country after strict gun laws are enacted is much easier than in countries with such porous borders.  I know this is not the only or even the major factor, but it should be considered a pretty significant difference between the countries in general.  Population and number, if any, of gun manufacturers IN the countries is a factor as well.

 

That said, I looked into Japan's laws and even though I'm opposed to a total gun ban in this country, I think that we could have similar regulations.  If we could shift from thinking that gun ownership is ONLY a right to the concept that it is a right AND privilege as is the attitude in some of these other countries, I think it would make the regulations less onerous.  But there are major differences in freedoms--and governments--in these countries, too, that make just imitating them less effective here, I think.  (How we view our relationship as citizens to the government is huge, IMO.)

 

Japan's regulations, from an Atlantic article:

 

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Edited December 3, 2015 by 6packofun

[Murphy101]

Why did you make this about race?

 

Now, of course we haven't yet been told by police what the motive was. They're being decidedly cautious about releasing details. But based on what I've read so far, I would be surprised if it wasn't Islamic terrorism.

Because I heard in the radio last night a news reporter saying that it could be terrorism because the name released was a "foreign name". Whatever the heck that moron thinks a foreign name is is probably based on him being a racist dumba$$. Or maybe just an ignorant dumba$$ who doesn't comprehend his own stupid.

 

A person could pass as white and have that name.

 

A person could be called a white bread name like Timothy Mcvey and be a political terrorist. (What origin is Mcvey name anyways? Somewhere in the UK? Ack! The British are coming! Said no one ever when the Oklahoma City bombings happened.)

 

I WISH terrorism was about skin color. Think how much easier it would be to identify the enemy.

 

But it isn't.

 

And yet the political terrorism talk is about race. And that's a dangerous error to make in our war efforts IMO. Not only does it not combat the actual enemy, it creates enemies and keeps us from forming allies.

[Mergath]

What? You could kill 14 people in a few minutes, with a knife? And, of course, they wouldn't be lining up for the privilege. Are you a master ninja?

 

What a strange assertion.

 

It's the perfect example of how people drastically overestimate their own abilities in a situation like that. Doing that kind of stuff looks easy in the movies so it must be easy in real life, right? Everyone thinks they're Keanu Reeves in The Matrix.

[Laurie]

I don't think all the guns need to be taken away from all the citizens.  I wouldn't support that.  But geez, how on earth does that strike fear into people, but they're OK with moving in this barbaric direction?  We should be progressing FORWARD with our societies, not backwards.  We should be becoming MORE civilized, not less so.  Guns do absolutely *nothing* to improve our societies.  *Nothing*.

 

& Now I'll say something *really* radical.  I feel so strongly about the downward spiral of our culture, that gun culture has brought us down to such a low-level, that I'm willing to die for it.  Yup.  I'm willing to NOT defend myself with a gun in order to do my part to reject this vigilante gun culture.  It's poison.  If only more people would care enough about society that they'd be willing to, as well.  It isn't about giving up rights.  It's about choosing to not contribute to the death of humanity.

Do you include Hollywood in your definition of "gun culture"?  

 

Is it enough to not own a gun?   Or should people also stop watching gun-filled movies and tv shows and stop playing video games with gun violence? 

 

I wonder what percentage of mass shooters have been members of the NRA and have been motivated to commit their crimes because of their participation in that organization?   Or were they spending hours and hours playing violent video games in their mothers' basements, etc.? 

 

[Slache]

So you think you could kill fourteen people in a crowd with a knife, no problem, and that all the people around you trying to stop you wouldn't be a deterrent, but an intruder into your house is going to be stopped by a door and a dog?

Slowed down, yes. I don't actually know what it would be like to run around with a knife trying to kill people. It's not exactly on my bucket list, you know. I just think that if someone intelligent and calm planned a mass murder without a gun they could pull it off.

[Slache]

Well, we are in agreement about the locks and dogs. :)

I was a dog groomer for 4 years. I have lots and lots of stories from costumers. Dogs are awesome.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We weren't discussing homicide rates.  We were discussing not getting shot in public by strangers.

 

Which is torturing the conversation to try and show that somehow gun free zones are why we have so many shootings.  Which is why I brought in homicide rates as a whole to show that no, the proliferation of guns in this country is NOT making us safer.  What you are doing is a typical ploy used by the NRA to stir up fear and make people like slache and her type believe if we just had more Rambos/Rambinas among us strapping guns to their waists and carrying knives in their teeth then everything would just be ****ing peaches and ****ing cream.  And it is time it gets called out every time it happens so hopefully enough people will see the real numbers and start putting some pressure on the whistle farts in Congress who have willingly let the NRA and its collection of wingnuts and conspiracy theorists (and gun manufacturers) grab them by the shorthairs.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do you include Hollywood in your definition of "gun culture"?  

 

Is it enough to not own a gun?   Or should people also stop watching gun-filled movies and tv shows and stop playing video games with gun violence? 

 

I wonder what percentage of mass shooters have been members of the NRA and have been motivated to commit their crimes because of their participation in that organization?   Or were they spending hours and hours playing violent video games in their mothers' basements, etc.? 

 

 

Do you think people in Japan and Europe don't watch the same movies?  Play the same video games?

[Slache]

It's the perfect example of how people drastically overestimate their own abilities in a situation like that. Doing that kind of stuff looks easy in the movies so it must be easy in real life, right? Everyone thinks they're Keanu Reeves in The Matrix.

I'm more of a Xena fan myself. ;) I don't know whether *I* could pull off such a thing, but someone could. Someone with a plan and motivation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Slowed down, yes. I don't actually know what it would be like to run around with a knife trying to kill people. It's not exactly on my bucket list, you know. I just think that if someone intelligent and calm planned a mass murder without a gun they could pull it off.

 

Yet...they don't. Even in countries with very strict gun control.  They don't. 

[redsquirrel]

 

 

This bears repeating.  I think I've heard only three mass shootings in the last hundred years haven't been in gun free zones.  If you're a homeschool family you can largely avoid gun free zones that aren't protected by metal detectors and armed police.  Avoid gang controlled areas. Choose theaters and grocery stores that allow you to carry weapons and your family will likely be safe from this sort of violence.

 

ETA: Note I am not saying you need to own weapons or carry them if you do, and I am definitely not saying to fight instead of run.  Just don't go to places that ban them because when criminals choose targets, they choose gun free zones.

 

 

 

That is not true.  The majority of shootings are in private homes.  Even 2/3 of "mass shootings' defined as 4 or more people being shot, happen in private homes. Domestic violence attacks makes up a large percentage of them.

 

We are all much more likely to be shot by someone we know very well, a family member or a friend.

 

And there were areas legally defined as 'gun free zones' a hundred years ago?  Really? I think of that as a modern occurrence. How is a 'gun free zone' defined in that assertion, because I am really curious.

[Murphy101]

Everyone I know who has a concealed carry permit "accidentally" doesn't see the gun free zone sign.

That is likely because not all signs are legal. The law is very clear in my state and in most others on what locations are required by law to be gun free and where it is illegal for CC holders to take their guns. Some random citizen putting up a sign does not give them the legal ability to remove another citizens right to legally CC. I've discussed that before so I won't rehash it all here.

[Slache]

Yet...they don't. Even in countries with very strict gun control. They don't.

There's something going on here that's bigger than guns. I don't understand what, and I know that guns are not helping, but people who intended to kill lots of people will do so without guns if necessary.

[Greta]

I was a dog groomer for 4 years. I have lots and lots of stories from costumers. Dogs are awesome.

Dogs are awesome indeed. We have three of them, a little crazy I know. But I honestly believe that is the reason our house has not been robbed, while most of the ones around us have. And ours are not big scary dogs, they're just noisy! :D

[Murphy101]

I didn't read it. There is a difference between when law enforcement shows up 10 minutes after the incident and a large portion of the population being armed and trained because the armed and trained people would already be there. It's better that I'm standing 4 feet from the shooter in the very beginning than a police officer standing 50 feet away 10 minutes later.

Ideally you get out of the way pronto and don't become a target for as long as possible. At the very least, the longer you are not in the shooters range, the less time you have to bleed out before the police and EMTs can get to you.

 

Real life is not as viewed on TV.

 

*smh*

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is not true.  The majority of shootings are in private homes.  Even 2/3 of "mass shootings' defined as 4 or more people being shot, happen in private homes. Domestic violence attacks makes up a large percentage of them.

 

We are all much more likely to be shot by someone we know very well, a family member or a friend.

 

And there were areas legally defined as 'gun free zones' a hundred years ago?  Really? I think of that as a modern occurrence. How is a 'gun free zone' defined in that assertion, because I am really curious.

 

They are backtracking and declaring any place that a shooting has happened (school, public building, etc) as a "gun free zone" and not bothering to check if in fact the location was actually legally declared a gun free zone.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There's something going on here that's bigger than guns. I don't understand what, and I know that guns are not helping, but people who intended to kill lots of people will do so without guns if necessary.

 

But...they aren't.

[redsquirrel]

That is likely because not all signs are legal. The law is very clear in my state and in most others on what locations are required by law to be gun free and where it is illegal for CC holders to take their guns. Some random citizen putting up a sign does not give them the legal ability to remove another citizens right to legally CC. I've discussed that before so I won't rehash it all here.

 

It does if it is private property, though, right?   For example, A church, that is owned by a LLC can define itself as a gun free zone b/c it is actually privately owned property. Or shopping malls are private property so they are allowed to do it.  They also have the right to not allow free speech in shopping malls, such as protesters etc.  Or franchise restaurants.  Those sorts of places are all private property, so those bans would be legal.

 

Property owners are not 'random people'. Unless of course in your state gun laws trump private property laws, and depending on the state, they might.

Edited December 3, 2015 by redsquirrel

[Slache]

Ideally you get out of the way pronto and don't become a target for as long as possible. At the very least, the longer you are not in the shooters range, the less time you have to bleed out before the police and EMTs can get to you.

 

Real life is not as viewed on TV.

 

*smh*

I totally agree. I might not after being properly trained though. Also, every situation is different. In lots of shootings running hasn't been an option. What's smh?

[goldberry]

Sure there are some people who think in an ideal world no one would have guns except military and police.  But they aren't the ones saying "This or nothing!" They know we live in a diverse nation. All those that I know would be pleased as punch to see any sort of decent gun control regulations implemented at all. That is why there is no real political proposal to "take away the guns". 

 

On the other hand, a seemingly large amount of people think gun ownership should have *no* restrictions or requirements.  Those are the ones saying "no compromise" (or at least allowing those who represent them to say it).

 

So which one of these groups is really stopping progress on the situation? 

 

I would also say that all the reasonable gun owners out there need to do a better job voicing their reasonableness politically.  If the NRA really doesn't speak for all gun owners, where are the others? Where are the representatives promoting a middle ground of responsible gun ownership?

 

 

 

 

[purplejackmama]

I don't think all the guns need to be taken away from all the citizens. I wouldn't support that. But geez, how on earth does that strike fear into people, but they're OK with moving in this barbaric direction? We should be progressing FORWARD with our societies, not backwards. We should be becoming MORE civilized, not less so. Guns do absolutely *nothing* to improve our societies. *Nothing*.

 

& Now I'll say something *really* radical. I feel so strongly about the downward spiral of our culture, that gun culture has brought us down to such a low-level, that I'm willing to die for it. Yup. I'm willing to NOT defend myself with a gun in order to do my part to reject this vigilante gun culture. It's poison. If only more people would care enough about society that they'd be willing to, as well. It isn't about giving up rights. It's about choosing to not contribute to the death of humanity.

Really?! You would die so evil could prevail? Huh?

[Murphy101]

I always love how the "responsible" gun owners in these discussions call out everyone EXCEPT the NRA.

Wth? I have repeatedly stated I'm not in the NRA and not a fan.

 

And in the very post you quote, I call out BOTH sides.

 

Your post is a perfect example of the foot stomping I was referencing.

[SKL]

 

 It's unfortunate that we can't see the wide gulf between no guns and all the guns and find ways to keep the most dangerous guns away from the most dangerous people.

 

 

Because you aren't allowed to go there.  "Most dangerous people" is going to be attacked no matter how you approach it.

 

[Valley Girl]

It does if it is private property, though, right?   For example, A church, that is owned by a LLC can define itself as a gun free zone b/c it is actually privately owned property. Or shopping malls are private property so they are allowed to do it.  They also have the right to not allow free speech in shopping malls, such as protesters etc.  Or franchise restaurants.  Those sorts of places are all private property, so those bans would be legal.

 

Property owners are not 'random people'. Unless of course in your state gun laws trump private property laws, and depending on the state, they might.

 

What I'm going to say may vary by state, but I think in my state if a business or such does not want anyone to bring in a concealed weapon, the sign has to contain very specific language. So a "no guns" sign wouldn't qualify. That may sound like quibbling, but it may be why a poster upthread said people she knows who carry concealed don't always obey the sign. Perhaps someone who knows more about this issue can explain it better.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Reluctant Homeschooler

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Wth? I have repeatedly stated I'm not in the NRA and not a fan.

 

And in the very post you quote, I call out BOTH sides.

 

Your post is a perfect example of the foot stomping I was referencing.

 

No, you don't.  You play a false middle ground position like always.

 

And I am stomping my foot. And people like me will continue to do so as there is no other way to be heard over the NRA.

 

And FTR, we are gun owners and both DH and I support much tougher gun control laws. 

[Mergath]

That is likely because not all signs are legal. The law is very clear in my state and in most others on what locations are required by law to be gun free and where it is illegal for CC holders to take their guns. Some random citizen putting up a sign does not give them the legal ability to remove another citizens right to legally CC. I've discussed that before so I won't rehash it all here.

 

It does in Minnesota, so I'd be careful telling people that most of those signs are illegal. Any private establishment here can post signs prohibiting people (aside from LEOs, obviously) from carrying a gun onto the property.

 

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/pages/permit-to-carry-faq.aspx

[Joanne]

The articles I've read this morning state the firearms used yesterday were obtained legally. So, I think it's fair to discuss what we might be doing wrong and try to figure out a better system. So, yes, those legal efforts may feel like they're directed at you as well since you also obtain your firearms legally. But I can't imagine not trying something different, and perhaps better, to possibly keep them out of the wrong hands.

Except the terrorist group known as the NRA blocks, stops, and prohibits actual funded research that would allow us to form policy based on actual data that inform increased safety.

[mom2scouts]

I always love how the "responsible" gun owners in these discussions call out everyone EXCEPT the NRA.

 

Only a small percentage of gun owners are members or supporters of the NRA, but many anti-gun people seem to think gun owner equals NRA. I have a friend who is an open carry advocate. He's had people come up and, when they see his gun, yell at him that they "hate the NRA!". He tells them he doesn't care because he's never been a member and doesn't plan to be. Of course,he also seems to attract an unusual number of  people who claim they hate gun violence and then tell him they hope his children get shot. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What I'm going to say may vary by state, but I think in my state if a business or such does not want anyone to bring in a concealed weapon, the sign has to contain very specific language. So a "no guns" sign wouldn't qualify. That may sound like quibbling, but it may be why a poster upthread said people she knows who carry concealed don't always obey the sign. Perhaps someone who knows more about this issue can explain it better.

 

You are correct.  Some state laws require that posted sign hast to have certain elements (size, location, wording) to qualify as a legal posting banning guns from the establishment.  Some only require that a "good faith effort" be made to place a sign.

 

Of course I think the nutters who disobey a business owner's request to not carry in their establishment (because of rights! 'Murica!) are pretty scummy individuals.

 

Generally ignoring a lawful posting isn't a crime, and the usual result would be the business asking the person to leave and a trespass warning being issued.

[OH_Homeschooler]

That is likely because not all signs are legal. The law is very clear in my state and in most others on what locations are required by law to be gun free and where it is illegal for CC holders to take their guns. Some random citizen putting up a sign does not give them the legal ability to remove another citizens right to legally CC. I've discussed that before so I won't rehash it all here.

 

We live in a world where people are more concerned with "sign laws" than "gun laws." Perhaps that is the problem. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Only a small percentage of gun owners are members or supporters of the NRA, but many anti-gun people seem to think gun owner equals NRA. I have a friend who is an open carry advocate. He's had people come up and, when they see his gun, yell at him that they "hate the NRA!". He tells them he doesn't care because he's never been a member and doesn't plan to be. Of course,he also seems to attract an unusual number of  people who claim they hate gun violence and then tell him they hope his children get shot. 

 

He isn't an NRA member but he benefits from their lobbying efforts.  Yay for him?

[redsquirrel]

Slowed down, yes. I don't actually know what it would be like to run around with a knife trying to kill people. It's not exactly on my bucket list, you know. I just think that if someone intelligent and calm planned a mass murder without a gun they could pull it off.

 

The same day as the Sandy Hook massacre, a man armed with a knife attacked an elementary school in China. He wounded 22 people, mostly children and there were no casualties. It was a terrible thing, but those children went home to their parents.

 

There was a spate of similar knife attacks in china, and yes, of course some people have died. A shocking number have been directed at children. It's really upsetting to read about. But the number of deaths has much smaller than one might imagine.  Are any deaths of that nature acceptable? Nope. But I am glad those madmen didn't have access to semi-automatic weapons and huge amounts of ammo.

[Mergath]

What I'm going to say may vary by state, but I think in my state if a business or such does not want anyone to bring in a concealed weapon, the sign has to contain very specific language. So a "no guns" sign wouldn't qualify. That may sound like quibbling, but it may be why a poster upthread said people she knows who carry concealed don't always obey the sign. Perhaps someone who knows more about this issue can explain it better.

 

I'm not sure which state you live in (I'm horrible at remembering that stuff) but here's the state statute for my state regarding this. I see these signs on almost every business in town. Despite this being a rural farming area with a ton of hunters, most people here don't want any yahoo strolling around with guns in the local shops. And amazingly we've all managed to survive despite having so many gun-free zones around.

 

(i) the requester has prominently posted a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the establishment containing the following language: "(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES."; or

(ii) the requester or the requester's agent personally informs the person that guns are prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.

(2) "Prominently" means readily visible and within four feet laterally of the entrance with the bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor.

(3) "Conspicuous" means lettering in black arial typeface at least 1-1/2 inches in height against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area.

(4) "Private establishment" means a building, structure, or portion thereof that is owned, leased, controlled, or operated by a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose.

© The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.

(d) This subdivision does not apply to private residences. The lawful possessor of a private residence may prohibit firearms, and provide notice thereof, in any lawful manner.

[Katy]

Ah, I responded to this once and my browser crashed...  trying again...

 

Which is torturing the conversation to try and show that somehow gun free zones are why we have so many shootings.  Which is why I brought in homicide rates as a whole to show that no, the proliferation of guns in this country is NOT making us safer.  What you are doing is a typical ploy used by the NRA to stir up fear and make people like slache and her type believe if we just had more Rambos/Rambinas among us strapping guns to their waists and carrying knives in their teeth then everything would just be ****ing peaches and ****ing cream.  And it is time it gets called out every time it happens so hopefully enough people will see the real numbers and start putting some pressure on the whistle farts in Congress who have willingly let the NRA and its collection of wingnuts and conspiracy theorists (and gun manufacturers) grab them by the shorthairs.

 

I'm not a member of the NRA.  I'm absolutely not trying to stir up vigilante anything, and I demonstrated that earlier in the thread by posting my opinion AND A VIDEO that the safest thing to do is to run and take as many people with you as possible, even if you ARE trained to fight back effectively.  You only fight back if you have no choice.

 

I was discussing only mass shootings (as defined by being shot in public by a stranger).  If you want to prevent your family from being the victims of gun violence:

 

1. Don't own a gun.
2. Have everyone in your family including little children take age-appropriate gun safety courses at all times so they understand what to do when they encounter a firearm.
3. Do not tolerate domestic violence.  If someone in your family is mentally unstable or violent, report it and end the relationship at the very first incident.
4. Live in a safe suburban area, far away from gang territories and where average police response time is very fast, under 5 minutes even in non-emergency situations.
5. Never go to public locations that are gun-free zones unless they are protected by metal detectors and armed guards.  Choose movie theaters that allow guns.  Choose emergency rooms with metal detectors.
6. Avoid interstates in large metropolitan areas to avoid highway shooters.

 

 

That is not true.  The majority of shootings are in private homes.  Even 2/3 of "mass shootings' defined as 4 or more people being shot, happen in private homes. Domestic violence attacks makes up a large percentage of them.

 

We are all much more likely to be shot by someone we know very well, a family member or a friend.

 

And there were areas legally defined as 'gun free zones' a hundred years ago?  Really? I think of that as a modern occurrence. How is a 'gun free zone' defined in that assertion, because I am really curious.

 

Yes, gun free zones have been around since the early 1900's. The first federal gun regulations weren't passed until after the St Valentine's Day massacre, but some states have had controls for longer than that.  Keep in mind that the reason we have a constitutional right to having guns and militias is because there was gun control before the American Revolution.   The Intolerable Acts, after the Boston Tea Party,  included seizing gunpowder.

[Slache]

The same day as the Sandy Hook massacre, a man armed with a knife attacked an elementary school in China. He wounded 22 people, mostly children and there were no casualties. It was a terrible thing, but those children went home to their parents.

 

There was a spate of similar knife attacks in china, and yes, of course some people have died. A shocking number have been directed at children. It's really upsetting to read about. But the number of deaths has much smaller than one might imagine.  Are any deaths of that nature acceptable? Nope. But I am glad those madmen didn't have access to semi-automatic weapons and huge amounts of ammo.

It wasn't planned out though. It was random. I think if the man had planned it out the outcome would have been different.

[Murphy101]

It does if it is private property, though, right? For example, A church, that is owned by a LLC can define itself as a gun free zone b/c it is actually privately owned property. Or shopping malls are private property so they are allowed to do it. They also have the right to not allow free speech in shopping malls, such as protesters etc. Or franchise restaurants. Those sorts of places are all private property, so those bans would be legal.

 

Property owners are not 'random people'. Unless of course in your state gun laws trump private property laws, and depending on the state, they might.

No.

 

A common example used is the no shirt/shoes signs or tie required restaurant.

 

Let's say you walk into the place without shoes.

 

Did you break the law?

 

No. You did not. Because there is no law mandating you wear shoes because a private entity put up a sign.

 

Let's say the private owner notices you don't have shoes and then tells you to either put on shoes or leave.

 

At that point you still have not broken a law unless you refuse to comply and at that point the only law you might have broken is trespassing law.

 

But even this is somewhat ambiguous.

 

For example I cannot put up a sign that is against civil rights.

 

I cannot put up a sign that says "no negros/Irish/Jews/Arabs/chinamen/gays" and have it supported legally. Sure I could call the cops and say they refuse to leave and the cops will likely make them leave but decline charging them with trespass. And I'd be risking being charged with discrimination since the courts have declared even private businesses cannot deny fellow citizens free use of their civil rights. And gun ownership is a civil right in this country.

 

In this case, I'm torn. Otoh I have a strong aversion to guns being left in vehicles, even in a lock box, which is what people who CC would likely have to do if they need to enter the establishment and honor the not at all legally binding sign. And also, I have a strong aversion to people having to declare to everyone they meet that they are CC. It rather defeats the point of CC. I would not want anyone advertising they have a gun on them.

 

But if they can, I would like them to honor the signals a gesture of good faith and unspoken courtesy.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No.

 

A common example used is the no shirt/shoes signs or tie required restaurant.

 

Let's say you walk into the place without shoes.

 

Did you break the law?

 

No. You did not. Because there is no law mandating you wear shoes because a private entity put up a sign.

 

Let's say the private owner notices you don't have shoes and then tells you to either put on shoes or leave.

 

At that point you still have not broken a law unless you refuse to comply and at that point the only law you might have broken is trespassing law.

 

But even this is somewhat ambiguous.

 

For example I cannot put up a sign that is against civil rights.

 

I cannot put up a sign that says "no negros/Irish/Jews/Arabs/chinamen/gays" and have it supported legally. Sure I could call the cops and say they refuse to leave and the cops will likely make them leave but decline charging them with trespass. And I'd be risking being charged with discrimination since the courts have declared even private businesses cannot deny fellow citizens free use of their civil rights. And gun ownership is a civil right in this country.

 

In this case, I'm torn. Otoh I have a strong aversion to guns being left in vehicles, even in a lock box, which is what people who CC would likely have to do if they need to enter the establishment and honor the not at all legally binding sign. And also, I have a strong aversion to people having to declare to everyone they meet that they are CC. It rather defeats the point of CC. I would not want anyone advertising they have a gun on them.

 

But if they can, I would like them to honor the signals a gesture of good faith and unspoken courtesy.

 

The only part you are completely correct about is that someone ignoring a sign generally will not be charged with a crime.  The no shoes/no shirt really isn't ambiguous - a store owner can lawfully ask someone who is violating their store policy to leave. 

 

You are amazingly confused regarding the civil rights aspect of this, as gun owners are not a protected class under federal or state discrimination laws.

 

[SKL]

He isn't an NRA member but he benefits from their lobbying efforts.  Yay for him?

 

NRA lobbying efforts or the 2nd Amendment?

 

Why would the NRA need to lobby about law-abiding people carrying small weapons?

 

[redsquirrel]

It wasn't planned out though. It was random. I think if the man had planned it out the outcome would have been different.

 

Well, that is a nice speculation, but very difficult assert with any certainty.

 

And killing someone with a knife isn't that easy actually.  It's not like it looks on TV. I've, well, a long time ago I went through a training by the FBI in violent crime scene investigation. I also sat on a child fatality investigation team. And knife killings, even with more than one victim, aren't easy to pull off.  They take a lot more strength than you might think, and if the stabber is going to keep control if the weapon, meaning not get cut himself b/c the weapon gets slippery, it is difficult to attack with lethality. And some of the scenes we studied were 'planned' killings. They weren't that different than the rage killings though, in terms of the scene. 

 

So, yeah, that was another life ago, lol. 

[Joker]

Ah, I responded to this once and my browser crashed... trying again...

 

 

I'm not a member of the NRA. I'm absolutely not trying to stir up vigilante anything, and I demonstrated that earlier in the thread by posting my opinion AND A VIDEO that the safest thing to do is to run and take as many people with you as possible, even if you ARE trained to fight back effectively. You only fight back if you have no choice.

 

I was discussing only mass shootings (as defined by being shot in public by a stranger). If you want to prevent your family from being the victims of gun violence:

 

• Don't own a gun.
• Have everyone in your family including little children take age-appropriate gun safety courses at all times so they understand what to do when they encounter a firearm.
• Do not tolerate domestic violence. If someone in your family is mentally unstable or violent, report it and end the relationship at the very first incident.
• Live in a safe suburban area, far away from gang territories and where average police response time is very fast, under 5 minutes even in non-emergency situations.
• Never go to public locations that are gun-free zones unless they are protected by metal detectors and armed guards. Choose movie theaters that allow guns. Choose emergency rooms with metal detectors.
• Avoid interstates in large metropolitan areas to avoid highway shooters.

.

Yeah, I don't do 4, 5, or 6 yet I don't feel unsafe nor do I feel a need for a gun. I would actually feel safer in places without people carrying concealed (excepting police or military).

[6packofun]

Do you think people in Japan and Europe don't watch the same movies?  Play the same video games?

 

I think that, at least in Japan, the citizens are more willing to allow the government to do searches, seize property, and answer questions out of fear of punitive repercussions.  Countries with governments way more involved in regulating their personal lives get used to that intrusion and so have a motivation to comply that eclipses other factors, violent movies and video games or not.  Ever wonder why so much violent manga and films come from such a repressed society?  lol  

[Katy]

Yeah, I don't do 4, 5, or 6 yet I don't feel unsafe nor do I feel a need for a gun. I would actually feel safer in places without people carrying concealed (excepting police or military).

 

People who are afraid of guns frequently feel safer when they are not around...  yet criminals who plan to shoot strangers frequently choose gun-free zones.  Elliot Rodgers wrote extensively about this.  The place he wanted to kill people had too many cops, so he chose other areas.

 

If you've ever lived out in the country and called the sheriff when someone was trying to break into your home and you didn't have a gun you might not feel as safe living in an area without quick police response time. Luckily in our case we had a neighbor who was armed saw what was going on and the person trying to break in ran. Shots were fired and it still took 4 hours for a deputy to show up!

 

This is an emotional issue, but emotions are frequently not logical.

[mom2scouts]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/01/black-friday-breaks-record-185k-gun-background-checks/76624604/

 

Somebody just posted this story to my FB page. I'm not sure how it fits into this conversation, but I thought it was interesting. I've heard gun shops owners say that they like when politicians start talking about more gun control because it always increases their sales. Will this incident do that or will there be a point when even gun rights supporters decide there's been too much gun violence?

 

There was also an interesting event in my area on Tuesday. A man was walking around a city carrying a TAR-21 semi-automatic rifle slung over his back. The police stopped him and questioned him. Since open carry is legal, he said he was just exercising his second amendment rights, and he didn't seem to be a threat, they had to let him go and just checked on him from time to time. While I don't advocate doing that because it scares people and probably doesn't help his cause, he does have the right to do so in my state.

[Joker]

People who are afraid of guns frequently feel safer when they are not around... yet criminals who plan to shoot strangers frequently choose gun-free zones. Elliot Rodgers wrote extensively about this. The place he wanted to kill people had too many cops, so he chose other areas.

 

If you've ever lived out in the country and called the sheriff when someone was trying to break into your home and you didn't have a gun you might not feel as safe living in an area without quick police response time. Luckily in our case we had a neighbor who was armed saw what was going on and the person trying to break in ran. Shots were fired and it still took 4 hours for a deputy to show up!

 

This is an emotional issue, but emotions are frequently not logical.

I'm not afraid of guns, though. I grew up with them in my home and I grew up shooting - in the country. I've never said those people out in the country who feel afraid shouldn't be allowed to have guns, either. I don't feel a need for them and I don't feel most who carry concealed can actually do what they think they can.

[justasque]

 

1. Avoid interstates in large metropolitan areas to avoid highway shooters.

 

There is a point where these precautions make sense, and there is a point where they don't.  I drive 200-300 miles every week, mostly on the interstate in large metro areas, mostly for reasons around either education or exercise.  I am more likely to be injured in a motor vehicle collision, or by hitting a deer with my car, than in a highway shoot-out.  At some point, my quality of life trumps the risks I take.  Going out and about I meet and interact with a diverse group of people - multi-racial, multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, youth and elders, immigrants and native-born Americans, well-educated and not, wealthy and financially struggling.  We exercise together, we learn together, we teach each other, we break bread together.  I'm not going to stay at home in my little homogeneous suburban enclave and let the terrorists win.

[Katy]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/01/black-friday-breaks-record-185k-gun-background-checks/76624604/

 

Somebody just posted this story to my FB page. I'm not sure how it fits into this conversation, but I thought it was interesting. I've heard gun shops owners say that they like when politicians start talking about more gun control because it always increases their sales. Will this incident do that or will there be a point when even gun rights supporters decide there's been too much gun violence?

 

There was also an interesting event in my area on Tuesday. A man was walking around a city carrying a TAR-21 semi-automatic rifle slung over his back. The police stopped him and questioned him. Since open carry is legal, he said he was just exercising his second amendment rights, and he didn't seem to be a threat, they had to let him go and just checked on him from time to time. While I don't advocate doing that because it scares people and probably doesn't help his cause, he does have the right to do so in my state.

 

This incident will absolutely increase gun sales.  Every time this president speaks about gun violence gun sales increase.

 

IME, when gun rights supporters change their minds it is for emotional reasons (their child or grandchild died by playing with a gun they found unsecured), not due to changing their minds about "too much gun violence."  The reasons for this vary, but basically the worst gun crime areas seem far away. 

 

When you're in a rural area, not only is it considered a moral duty to be able to protect your family, everyone you know has an anecdote about how someone they know was saved from crime by a gun. Everyone has an aunt who stopped a mugging by pulling a weapon, or stopped a cousin's husband from beating up the cousin when she finally left him by having a gun.  Or like us, got saved by a neighbor when the sheriff couldn't get there in time. They may all know those who committed suicide with a gun too, but that gets shrugged off as they would have been suicidal regardless.

[Katy]

There is a point where these precautions make sense, and there is a point where they don't.  I drive 200-300 miles every week, mostly on the interstate in large metro areas, mostly for reasons around either education or exercise.  I am more likely to be injured in a motor vehicle collision, or by hitting a deer with my car, than in a highway shoot-out.  At some point, my quality of life trumps the risks I take.  Going out and about I meet and interact with a diverse group of people - multi-racial, multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, youth and elders, immigrants and native-born Americans, well-educated and not, wealthy and financially struggling.  We exercise together, we learn together, we teach each other, we break bread together.  I'm not going to stay at home in my little homogeneous suburban enclave and let the terrorists win.

 

I agree with you.  I don't follow all of those points. I just added that because there are highway shooters several times per year.

[mathnerd]

Now, they are saying that it could be terrorism or a mixed case of terrorism+work dispute (the man traveled to Saudi Arabia recently and his wife is from there). And there is speculation that there is a "gang" or group of them working together (that these are not "lone" terrorist acts). There was also a CBS news article according to my local TV station that there were several middle eastern men seen going into the house of the gunman in the past week. 

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/02/authorities-search-redlands-home-tied-to-suspect-syed-farook/

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

When you're in a rural area, not only is it considered a moral duty to be able to protect your family, everyone you know has an anecdote about how someone they know was saved from crime by a gun. Everyone has an aunt who stopped a mugging by pulling a weapon, or stopped a cousin's husband from beating up the cousin when she finally left him by having a gun.  Or like us, got saved by a neighbor when the sheriff couldn't get there in time. They may all know those who committed suicide with a gun too, but that gets shrugged off as they would have been suicidal regardless.

 

Broad generalization.  DH and I both grew up in a very rural area (DH was very rural).  We don't have friends or family members with tales of guns saving their lives.