Gun Control

[Sunshine Jesse]

I'll stop you right there.  This is both true and false, but I do agree with you.  More drug-related debate should be taken to a separate thread if you wish to discuss it in a general spectrum.

There's no debate on drugs, only people cowardly enough to not go as far as they need to, and idiots people who try to control us in ways we shouldn't be controlled while brainwashing the gullible masses into believing they have the right and/or need to do so.

 

The problems caused by the war on drugs absolutely run deeper than anything caused by guns. It's one of the things that guns make worse, sure, but taking them out of the equation wouldn't make anything better enough.

[Phantom Roxas]

I live in Louisiana.  I was only using Chicago as an example.  Most of the gun violence in New Orleans stems from drugs.  So does that make drugs the problem or guns?

 

Ah, I apologize for my mistake.

[vla1ne]

I believe better background checks would be a strong start for preventative measures, and i support looking at each person's past in detail, before giving them access to guns. I don't however, for a second think that banning bump stock, "assault", large capacity clips, rifles, shotguns, uzis, or any other variation of weapon or weapon accessory (bar full auto, which is already banned) would solve, or even alleviate the overall problem to any noticeable degree.

 

as far as control goes, tightening the leash won't solve the issue as effectively as loosening the rope would in these kinds of cases. gun control is, to me, a kneejerk response, until you can clearly list all ways you wish to implement them, and explain how exactly you plan to make them both cost effective, and near foolproof. (will elaborate with examples here if asked, but right now i'm not planning to.). the way i see it, allowing people who are licenced, to carry their guns with them wherever they choose to go (properly holstered and concealed of course), would do more to prevent incidents like mass shootings, than banning guns from any area. removing guns from any area, in a country that allows guns, does nothing but give potential criminals, more potential areas to attack with minimal resistance. 

 

but to go a bit deeper, let's look at the mass shootings that have occurred in the past:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

this is a list of every shooting in american schools from the 1800's to today. looking through it, you can see that the most fatal, or high injury (where high in this case, means passing 10 people either injured or dead) of the school shootings, were usually completely unrelated to the kinds of folks you'd normally stop from having guns.

the earliest high fatality/injury shooting being in 1966 by some guy who made it to the top of an observation deck and just started a shooting.

the next one being 1968, where police were the cause,

the next being in 1970, again, police related.

the next one being 1974, where the top student on a rifle team was the culprit, low fatality, high injury only though.

later on, 1984, where a man shot up an elementary school.

1986 saw a rare husband and wife combination, in which a town marshall and his wife capped out at 74 injuries in a hostage situation at an elementary school, though only killing 2 people.

1989 was yet another elementary school, where a man who had no right to own guns, somehow got his hands on one, and killed only 6, though he put 32 in the hospital.

the next one skips all the way to 1992, where a man killed 3 and injured 10. in that same year there was a strange case of 3 different schools having shootings on the exact same day, totaling 11 injuries, but luckily no deaths.

then in 1998, two students killed 5 and injured 10, in a fire alarm they set, then we get to the next of that year, where a lone shooter killed 4 and injured 23.

we then get to columbine, where we see 15 injured and 21 killed, the pair of shooters killing themselves shortly after.

2001 had 2 dead and 13 injured. then to 2005 where we see 10 injured and 7 wounded.

2007 is virginia tech, where 33 deaths and  23 injured holds the absolute record,

then we get to 2008 and see 6 injured, and 21 injured. 

then sandy hook in 2012, where he killed his mom, took her guns, and killed 28 people (self included), and injured 2 more.

2017 is next, with a man who killed 6, and injured 18.

the next, was the marshall county shooting this year, where 2 died, and 18 were injured, followed shortly by the parkland shooting on the 14 of February, which saw 17 dead and 14 injured.

 

looking at that list, i can tell you this much, stricter gun laws, were not going to stop many of these people, hindsight is 20/20, but that 20/20 is useless until it's too late, which is why gun control, at least as far as preventing criminals from getting it, is not as viable a solution as allowing those who wish to arm themselves, to arm themselves. in many of the above shootings, the shooter(s) could have been stopped far earlier, had even a few of the victims been armed. that's not to say arming people is a foolproof solution either, but i cannot see why it would be so unfavorable as it is on many news channels, when looking at past records shows that that ounce of prevention (allowing people who are CC permitted, to CC) would have prevented more of the mass shootings than many, if any, new gun laws could have hoped to.

[Dad]

Do you believe a teacher at Parkland could have shot and killed the culprit through a panicking crowd of hundreds of students?

 

Why or why not?

 

Do you believe any of the armed attendees at the concert shooting of 2017 could have spotted and killed the shooter?

 

Why or why not?

[vla1ne]

Do you believe a teacher at Parkland could have shot and killed the culprit through a panicking crowd of hundreds of students?

 

Why or why not?

 

Do you believe any of the armed attendees at the concert shooting of 2017 could have spotted and killed the shooter?

 

Why or why not?

in the panicking crowd? no, but outside of said crowd? definitely. in order to escape, he hid inside the crowd of fleeing students, in other words, letting off shots would only blow his cover at that point. by then, it was far too late to stop him, and he managed to get away for a bit before being found by the cops. but when he started shooting? he was likely out in the wide open for a bit as he was letting off rounds, before deciding to run off before cops arrived. 4-5 staff with guns would likely have been able to stop him early on, doing at least enough damage to slow his rampage down.

 

the attendees stopping the shooter in the motel? not likely, the dude was something like 12 or 20 stories up, popping people, but he took quite a while to prepare for his debut as well, and spent quite a bit of money making sure he could get the best vantage point. on the other hand, had hotel staff heard the gunshots, i'd say if some of them happened to have a gun on them, and maybe a walkie to confirm the situation (which some hotels do have on employees, to make communication more efficient) they could have possibly capped him before he let off the amount of bullets he did.

 

 

Do you think stricter gun laws would have stopped the sandy hook shooting?

 

Why or why not?

 

Do you believe stricter gun laws would have stopped the Marshall county shooting?

 

why or why not?

[Dad]

What of the four armed police officers outside of Parkland?  What prevented them from stopping an active shooter?

 

I have no opinion.  I won't take sides in a section I moderate.

[vla1ne]

What of the four armed police officers outside of Parkland?  What prevented them from stopping an active shooter?

cowards. and i'm not saying that to degrade them, as armed officers, one of their jobs is to uphold the law, as such, not intervening when there is absolutely zero doubt that they need to, should be grounds to fire them on the spot. i understand that they froze up, and i can't fault them on that in and of itself, but their job is one that requires them to no freeze up in those moments, and as they've shown, they cannot be trusted with that responsibility. that aside, their actions do not speak for the actions of everybody else if placed in the same situation. i don't want to turn teachers or other staff into police officers, i simply want to allow them the chance to defend themselves under circumstances like this. i've said it before, but one or two people shooting back, has been proven to be the difference between one more life lost in these kinds of situations. 

 

and before anybody points it out, yes, i know said people may well hit somebody innocent, while i'd hope it wouldn't happen, it could, but i would still say that while unfortunate, the chance of a stray bullet, is still a better option when it comes with the ability to stop school shooters before they rack up far higher numbers than any stray bullet could. i know the potential outcomes, and i'd still pick this poison over the other.

 

 

I have no opinion. I won't take sides in a section I moderate.

 

aaww, you're missing out on some fun pokes.

[Dad]

 

aaww, you're missing out on some fun pokes.

 

As entertaining as it may be, it would be irresponsible of me to do anything other than to create conversation for the debate at hand.

 

Can you tell me your thoughts on the expenses that would come from arming and training teachers?  With the state of the Department of Education, do you think the funding will be available to accomplish these things?  What of the expense of teachers putting their own lives in danger?  Will they see an increase in pay?  Should they see an increase in pay?

[Death Metal]

I own firearms so I might be a bit biased but the topic of banning guns always falls down to a scapegoat like the AR-15 instead of what it should be (better mental evaluations, putting restriction on free gun trade during shows or online without a transfer from a FFL dealer, ect). Honestly whenever I hear people say "ban the AR-15" or "ban assault weapons" I honestly don't even know what they mean by it half the time, it's so damn vague. Do they want all semi-automatics? All firearms? Just the AR-15?

I mean honestly, I hear a lot about things too like "who needs x" and "you don't need a x to hunt" but firearms are used for a variety of reasons and the only thing that makes a firearm dangerous is the person holding it and from my perspective trying to ban all firearms in a nation as diverse and as big as the US isn't gonna be feasible at this point.

[vla1ne]

As entertaining as it may be, it would be irresponsible of me to do anything other than to create conversation for the debate at hand.

 

Can you tell me your thoughts on the expenses that would come from arming and training teachers?  With the state of the Department of Education, do you think the funding will be available to accomplish these things?  What of the expense of teachers putting their own lives in danger?  Will they see an increase in pay?  Should they see an increase in pay?

fine. i get you.

 

There should be no expenses on that front. the government should not be arming teachers and that's not what i mean when i say it. I disagree with anybody who believes that would be a good idea. The idea, as far as I've seen, and agree with 100%, is that teachers and faculty who are licenced to bring guns, should be allowed to do so. That way in the case of a school shooting, or other school wide threat, they would not be left as helpless as they are now. it would be their choice to fire back, as they aren't cops or anything like, but giving them the option to do so, is all that i'm advocating.

 

as for increased pay, teachers deserve that regardless. guns or no guns, teachers deserve enough to live comfortably for the sheet they go through on a day to day basis dealing with kids. I could say, good teachers, but that'd semantics. the job itself deserves a higher pay grade.

 

 

that said, i agree with having national standards for gun ownership as well. that way we have a solid baseline. it's not guaranteed to be foolproof, but in combination with giving the option (not making it mandatory, but allowing the option) to faculty, you would lower mass shootings, and have a far higher chance at lowering the damage by turning once clear targets into people who may well shoot back if they see you pull out a gun.

[Dad]

Using Chicago as an example again, what changes would you make to their gun laws and enact across the country?  The standard is more mental evaluations, but most mentally ill people are non-violent.  What, besides mental health evaluations, do you think could be changed to reduce gun violence of all kinds?

 

 

"You" will always be general and anyone can answer the questions I provide.  I'm just generating discussion.  Rebuttal is the name of the game.  Discourse is the objective.

[vla1ne]

nothing, at least nothing related to the gun laws. chicago's gun laws are good enough as is, the problem is not the gun laws, but the poverty, the drugs, the poor housing, the constant decline in living conditions of chicago. the atmosphere of chicago itself (as in the listed problems, taken as a whole) is what leads to the spike in crime. the goal there shouldn't be to focus on the gun laws, they're as strong as they need to be, you need to bring the rest of the city up to par on other levels the better things get, the less people will feel the need to resort to crime, it's a slower process than anybody would like, but the long game improvement is the goal there, not some immediate effect. that's a discussion for another thread though.

[Dad]

I meant that specifically in relation to Chicago's gun laws and gun related crimes.  If their gun laws are so strong, then why is it their gun violence hasn't been reduced?  Is it due to neighboring states, as most often reported?  What could you change specifically in relation to Illinois and neighboring states gun laws to reduce gun related crimes?

 

You're not going to just sweep drugs off the streets in a day's time.  And even if you did, you would be picking up every footsoldier slinging a gram of weed and throwing them in jail for something trivial.  Poor housing is a result of economical imbalance.  But none of these things are what I want to know about.

 

The war on drugs has been going on since before the eighties.  I'd love to hear more about your opinion on Chicago in general in a separate thread, but not here.  

 

Is there anyone else who would change any laws in Illinois and surrounding states?  What about border checks?  License/ID checks?  Tracking sales of weapons?

[vla1ne]

I meant that specifically in relation to Chicago's gun laws and gun related crimes.  If their gun laws are so strong, then why is it their gun violence hasn't been reduced?  Is it due to neighboring states, as most often reported?  What could you change specifically in relation to Illinois and neighboring states gun laws to reduce gun related crimes?

 

You're not going to just sweep drugs off the streets in a day's time.  And even if you did, you would be picking up every footsoldier slinging a gram of weed and throwing them in jail for something trivial.  Poor housing is a result of economical imbalance.  But none of these things are what I want to know about.

 

The war on drugs has been going on since before the eighties.  I'd love to hear more about your opinion on Chicago in general in a separate thread, but not here.  

 

Is there anyone else who would change any laws in Illinois and surrounding states?  What about border checks?  License/ID checks?  Tracking sales of weapons?

that's what i meant though. the gu  problem is not going to be solvable, until you solve the rest of the factors. it doesn't matter how strict or how lax their gun laws are, criminals will manage to find guns one way of another, sure, the bordering states have more lax laws, making it easier to obtain guns in said states, but that in and of itself is not the problem, it's merely a side issue. to understand this, just look at it from the reverse perspective. if the bordering states have such lax laws, why then, is their gun crime rate so much lower than chicago's own? this is what i mean. lax or tight laws are only one aspect. the strong gun laws are merely a bottlecap on the issue. when i say the laws in chicago are fine, i mean they are more than passing, both on paper and in practice. they say, exactly what they need to. the punishment and restrictions in place are enough. but no matter the laws on guns, if they do not improve the actual living conditions, the problem will not be solved.

 

i agree. and that is why i say the solution to chicago's gun problem, lies elsewhere. the gun problem is a symptom, not the cause, and as such, the gun laws, should not be the target. the laws on the books are tight, and more than qualify for the 'tough' label, but the problems, i.e. drugs, low education, poor living standard, economic collapse, ect, snowball into a far larger issue. guns are among the more dangerous heads in this mix, but they are not the head you need to focus on chopping off.

 

i agree.

 

border checks are something that would be up to the people living there to decide on implementing. i can't exactly say with confidence that it would be a welcome feature. there's arguments for it (finding dangerous weapons before they enter the state illegally, same with drugs and the like) and against it (violating privacy of innocent citizens, dissolving trust between citizen and law, ect), but it's something that while i'm against the principle of it, understand the desire for such.

[Tentacruel]

I would like to see law enforcement test this, and actually gather some statistics on where firearms used in crimes come from.  I could be wrong, but they should be able to run a check on the serial numbers of guns they confiscate from crimes, and see how many were originally bought out of state.

[Sunshine Jesse]

I meant that specifically in relation to Chicago's gun laws and gun related crimes. If their gun laws are so strong, then why is it their gun violence hasn't been reduced? Is it due to neighboring states, as most often reported? What could you change specifically in relation to Illinois and neighboring states gun laws to reduce gun related crimes?

 

You're not going to just sweep drugs off the streets in a day's time. And even if you did, you would be picking up every footsoldier slinging a gram of weed and throwing them in jail for something trivial. Poor housing is a result of economical imbalance. But none of these things are what I want to know about.

 

The war on drugs has been going on since before the eighties. I'd love to hear more about your opinion on Chicago in general in a separate thread, but not here.

 

Is there anyone else who would change any laws in Illinois and surrounding states? What about border checks? License/ID checks? Tracking sales of weapons?

I think the solution is full legalization of all drugs. Criminal organizations usually can't compete when the thing they're selling is actually useful.

 

You won't sweep all the drugs off the street immediately, but they will phase out over time when safer and cheaper means of attaining those drugs are present. I think that alone could solve a lot of gun problems, but my PoV might just be influenced from where I live. In Baltimore, drugs are very much the reason for an overwhelming majority of our violent crime. It might not be that easy elsewhere.

 

I think the two issues (gun violence and the war on drugs) are closely linked and think not focusing a good deal of the conversation on that is removing a lot of nuance that's needed.

 

That's another thing with the gun debate- guns are just the common factor, but each "gun problem" is a sign of another problem entirely. Guns just make it worse, but we absolutely do have the means to make the problem straight up go away with or without taking guns out of the equation.

[vla1ne]

I think the solution is full legalization of all drugs.

[spoiler=major sidetracking]i see where you're coming from, but i'm gonna have to disagree. legalizing drugs would move the market to aboveground, but it wouldn't be a solution that you'd want for the long run. many kinds of drugs are banned because they cause actual, drastic harm to the bodies ingesting them, and others are banned because they can cause the people ingesting them to pull some insane sheet. are there drugs that would be better off unbanned? yeah, but many of the drugs on the list are not applicable.

 

that said, removing the stigma, and making help more accessible, as well as lessening the punishment for users, and upping the punishment on dealers, would be capable of solving some of the damage. move the stigma away from the users, and put it on the dealers, while providing ways for both to leave the life discreetly, and without legal punishment. not sure how best to inplement it, but those are my thoughts on the drug issue.

 

 

 

I think the two issues (gun violence and the war on drugs) are closely linked and think not focusing a good deal of the conversation on that is removing a lot of nuance that's needed.

 

That's another thing with the gun debate- guns are just the common factor, but each "gun problem" is a sign of another problem entirely. Guns just make it worse, but we absolutely do have the means to make the problem straight up go away with or without taking guns out of the equation.

same here. guns are usually the go-to instrument for crime, but they are rarely the core of the issue. solving the core issue would drive the overall gun problem far lower than it is now. but the ways to do that aren't exactly gun related, so may as well save that one for another time.

[Dad]

Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed a "Gun Control" bill, as of March 9, 2018.  Inside the bill:

 

• Minimum purchase age for guns would be raised to 21.
• There will be a three day waiting period for firearm purchases, with some exceptions.
• Bump stocks will be banned.
• People who have been committed to a mental institution or who have been deemed "mentally defective" will be barred from owning a firearm until otherwise authorized by a court.
• Law enforcement officers will be able to request a court to temporarily prohibit someone from possessing or buying firearms or ammunition if there's evidence the person poses a threat to themselves or others.
• Additional funding for armed school resource officers and mental health programs will be provided.
• The Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which would allow some teachers to be armed if both the local school district and local sheriff's department agree, will be put into place.

 

You can read more at your leisure.  

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl-florida-school-shooting-rick-scott-gun-bill-20180308-story.html

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's unconstitutional

[Dad]

It's unconstitutional

 

You need to post more than this.  Explain your statement with detail.  

[Phantom Roxas]

Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed a "Gun Control" bill, as of March 9, 2018.  Inside the bill:

 

• Minimum purchase age for guns would be raised to 21.
• There will be a three day waiting period for firearm purchases, with some exceptions.
• Bump stocks will be banned.
• People who have been committed to a mental institution or who have been deemed "mentally defective" will be barred from owning a firearm until otherwise authorized by a court.
• Law enforcement officers will be able to request a court to temporarily prohibit someone from possessing or buying firearms or ammunition if there's evidence the person poses a threat to themselves or others.
• Additional funding for armed school resource officers and mental health programs will be provided.
• The Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which would allow some teachers to be armed if both the local school district and local sheriff's department agree, will be put into place.

 

You can read more at your leisure.  

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl-florida-school-shooting-rick-scott-gun-bill-20180308-story.html

 

Not comfortable with the idea of allowing teachers to be armed, but everything else looks good to me. Keep out the Guardian Program, and I'd be happy with similar bills being passed across the nation.

[Dad]

Not comfortable with the idea of allowing teachers to be armed, but everything else looks good to me. Keep out the Guardian Program, and I'd be happy with similar bills being passed across the nation.

 

Explain.

 

• Arming teachers is voluntary.  What makes you uncomfortable?
• What measures make someone mentally defective?
• What else would you change?

[Phantom Roxas]

 

Explain.

 

• Arming teachers is voluntary.  What makes you uncomfortable?
• What measures make someone mentally defective?
• What else would you change?

 

 

1. While I'm glad that there do seem to be restrictions - the school district and local sheriff's department must both agree - it still seems to me like the rather simplistic approach of "The solution to stopping people with guns is to give more people guns!" You're right that it's voluntary, and that's what my issue is. I would rather they not have the option at all.

 

2. I'm not quite sure if I understand your question, such as why they would have these mentally defective, or how they could be legally or clinically determined as such. While a history of prior commitment to a mental institution is useful, I believe it would do nothing, as the majority of school students who have committed these shootings do not have that history, and if they do, it wouldn't be until after the shooting is committed. I'm glad that they're providing more funding to guidance counseling. Speaking from my personal experience - though I can't speak on any larger scale - I went to a guidance counselor in sixth grade, who then referred me to a local therapist for anger management. So while supporting school guidance counselors is nice, I would also advise more support for therapists and psychological aide outside of a school setting. This particular point has been rambling, so I'll come back to this after you respond.

 

3. I am a little skeptical of the three day waiting period, but I'm assuming that those are necessary for time to run background checks. I would say that if a background check is not completed within three days, then the background check's completion must take full precedence, and a prospective owner must still wait for that background check, though that background check must still be completed as soon as possible.

[vla1ne]

quickly, i'll detain anything i skimp later:

Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed a "Gun Control" bill, as of March 9, 2018.  Inside the bill:

 

• Bump stocks will be banned.
• People who have been committed to a mental institution or who have been deemed "mentally defective" will be barred from owning a firearm until otherwise authorized by a court.
• Additional funding for armed school resource officers and mental health programs will be provided.
• The Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which would allow some teachers to be armed if both the local school district and local sheriff's department agree, will be put into place.

 

You can read more at your leisure.  

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl-florida-school-shooting-rick-scott-gun-bill-20180308-story.html

 

banning bump stocks, to me seems pointless. i get the idea behind it, but it's really an empty handwaive as ar as most firearms are concerned. and the ones that it does affect greatly, are in the vast the minority of weapons used by shooters in most crimes.

 

while i agree that those in mental institutions,and those deemed mentally defective are probabl better off without weapons, i have to ask, same as you: what constitutes mentally defective. mental institution, i can get behind, but mentally defective, sounds like something that's begging to be abused.

 

mental health i agree with, the funding for armed resource officers though... well, only time will tell if that's money well spent.

 

so longs as it's "allowing teachers to bring guns they own and have licences for" and not "funding to put guns on teachers" i see nothing wrong with that part.

 

everything else, i either agree with, or the nitpick is extremely minor imo.

 

 

1. While I'm glad that there do seem to be restrictions - the school district and local sheriff's department must both agree - it still seems to me like the rather simplistic approach of "The solution to stopping people with guns is to give more people guns!" You're right that it's voluntary, and that's what my issue is. I would rather they not have the option at all.

 

2. I'm not quite sure if I understand your question, such as why they would have these mentally defective, or how they could be legally or clinically determined as such. While a history of prior commitment to a mental institution is useful, I believe it would do nothing, as the majority of school students who have committed these shootings do not have that history, and if they do, it wouldn't be until after the shooting is committed. I'm glad that they're providing more funding to guidance counseling. Speaking from my personal experience - though I can't speak on any larger scale - I went to a guidance counselor in sixth grade, who then referred me to a local therapist for anger management. So while supporting school guidance counselors is nice, I would also advise more support for therapists and psychological aide outside of a school setting. This particular point has been rambling, so I'll come back to this after you respond.

 

3. I am a little skeptical of the three day waiting period, but I'm assuming that those are necessary for time to run background checks. I would say that if a background check is not completed within three days, then the background check's completion must take full precedence, and a prospective owner must still wait for that background check, though that background check must still be completed as soon as possible.

1) why not? who are you more likely to attack? the school were every teacher and faculty has a gun? or the school where nobody but a select few guards have guns? this is a country that allows guns, it's far easier to get them here, and as such, it's unavoidable fact that criminals, legally, or illegally, will have acess to guns one way or another. in addition, it's simply true that the most frequently targeted places for mass shootings, are 'no gun zones'. by which i mean areas where only 5-10 people in the entire area are liable to have guns. which is the exact 'hero fantasy' that most people often mock. in this way, anybody and everybody might well have a gun, meaning you're more likely to see potential school shooters either think twice about shooting, or get stopped twice as fast.

 

probably what critera, simply mentally defective, isn't exactly a strict term.

 

agreed.

[Phantom Roxas]

1) why not? who are you more likely to attack? the school were every teacher and faculty has a gun? or the school where nobody but a select few guards have guns? this is a country that allows guns, it's far easier to get them here, and as such, it's unavoidable fact that criminals, legally, or illegally, will have acess to guns one way or another. in addition, it's simply true that the most frequently targeted places for mass shootings, are 'no gun zones'. by which i mean areas where only 5-10 people in the entire area are liable to have guns. which is the exact 'hero fantasy' that most people often mock. in this way, anybody and everybody might well have a gun, meaning you're more likely to see potential school shooters either think twice about shooting, or get stopped twice as fast.

 

probably what critera, simply mentally defective, isn't exactly a strict term.

 

agreed.

 

1. While a school where every (Or at least the majority) member of faculty has a gun could certainly act as a deterrent, it feeds into a suggestion I've seen before, which is that if more good people had guns, maybe they could stop the bad people who have guns, and that thought process has rarely been backed up. That is the "hero fantasy" that I've seen mocked, and looking into it, the idea that gun-free zones are the most frequently targeted places for mass shootings is a myth, and I do suggest reading that article, because it suggests that - at least prior to 2014 - none of the shooters chose their targets for being "gun-free zones". Similar to what I mentioned to Winter on the first page about "assault rifles" supposedly just being a talking point invented by Democrats, what you're doing is repeating a false claim by the NRA. It's not "simply true", it's just said that it is as a means to silence people who argue for gun control.

 

2. I'm afraid to clarify the criteria here, mostly in that I imagine that what I have in mind is not at all how something works. I'll ask this mostly so I could learn, but without a history of commitment to a mental institution, how exactly could a firearms distributor learn that someone is mentally handicapped? I would also suggest that since some states seem fairly lax on even having a license to carry a gun, there should be more programs similar to DMV available to obtain a permit. t would also help if there was more serious action taken against radical white supremacy advocates, since that's also been a factor in mass shootings, such as Dylann Roof shooting up an African-American church because he wanted to provoke a race war. While mental health is a factor, I don't believe it's all that should be focused on, otherwise you run the risk of tunnel vision.