Another Gun free Zone

[woodchip]

Another gun free zone and 9 dead. Send your thoughts and prayers to the victims families. Then contact your representative and demand to have gun free zones eliminated as they are magnets for madmen. Why people keep thinking banning licensed CCW holders from carrying their weapon in certain areas makes those areas safer is beyond me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... me-church/

[callmeslick]

sure, let's let guns into our churches, and ponder the irony later. Yeesh. Seriously, that has to be the most warped perspective on this tragedy I've read, and borders on truly disgusting. If anything, another nail in the coffin of the 2nd Amendment, thanks to easy access, unfettered stupidity and hate.

[callmeslick]

from the recent news release on the suspected gunman:
"Cowles said Roof was given a gun by his father as a 21st birthday present in April."

for 9 people, and their families, the gift that will never stop giving. No doubt used for self-defense.


"He just said, 'I have to do it. You rape our women and you're taking over our country," Johnson said


boy, does this story tie together gun violence, responsible gun transfer, racism, hatred threads all at once. What it DOES NOT DO, is make a sane
person wish for more openings for folks to carry weapons, as Woody suggests.

[vision]

But imagine the cool gun battle when a dozen people with guns all try to be a hero!

[callmeslick]

But imagine the cool gun battle when a dozen people with guns all try to be a hero!

in a Church!!

[Lothar]

boy, does this story tie together gun violence, responsible gun transfer, racism, hatred threads all at once.

Yep.

What it DOES NOT DO, is make a sane person wish for more openings for folks to carry weapons

It makes me wish for more ability for ordinary sane folks to carry weapons everywhere, all the time. If you'll recall my comments in the other thread about "American gun culture", a big piece of it came from post-civil-war blacks trying to protect themselves going to polls. Violence against black churches has also been a big thing for generations. Disarming victims just makes them into targets.

I don't know if that particular church had a no-gun policy. No church I've been to has ever had any stated or posted policy. And I do in fact know people who carry at church.

[Ferno]

But imagine the cool gun battle when a dozen people with guns all try to be a hero!

in a Church!!

"yippie ki-yay ★■◆●..."

[callmeslick]

boy, does this story tie together gun violence, responsible gun transfer, racism, hatred threads all at once.

Yep.

What it DOES NOT DO, is make a sane person wish for more openings for folks to carry weapons

It makes me wish for more ability for ordinary sane folks to carry weapons everywhere, all the time. If you'll recall my comments in the other thread about "American gun culture", a big piece of it came from post-civil-war blacks trying to protect themselves going to polls. Violence against black churches has also been a big thing for generations. Disarming victims just makes them into targets.

I don't know if that particular church had a no-gun policy. No church I've been to has ever had any stated or posted policy. And I do in fact know people who carry at church.

welcome to Utah. You cannot carry in a church here in Delaware at all, nor in restaurants or stores. Virginia is more liberal than that, but I don't know of any church that would tolerate anyone carrying inside. You illlustrate, Lothar, where the whole issue around the 2nd Ameridment is going to reach critical mass. More voters DON'T own guns than do, and a substantial number(judging from reaction to today's news) have heard just about enough BS around 'what we need is for MORE people to carry'. No, what we need is to have a system that was aware the kid owned a gun when he got busted twice in the past 3 months since his birthday. We need a system that vets potential owners and makes carry permits limited to proven need. We need a system that makes people liable if, though negligence or outright stupidity put guns into the hands of children or known criminals. And the more you all fall back on 'More Guns' the more of your fellow citizens will cease to listen to your arguments, and at some point, majority rule kicks in.

[callmeslick]

the idea that it is all ok, because we have a 'gun culture' is, by the way, laughable. We had a 'gun culture' in the late 1800s and still many towns, especially in the west, banned public carry altogether. We have, as I noted more people who own ZERO handguns that own them, by a decent margin. We are the only nation on earth that sees this sort of violence on such a regular basis. The second place nation isn't even remote close to per capita incidents(limiting the discussion to the settled parts of the planet). Enough with the excuses,because that is all it is starting to sound like the pro-gun crowd can come up with: excuses, and lame ones at that.

[Spidey]

The really sad thing is...this situation is really about hate and mental illness, not guns.

I always refrain from posting alternate ways to kill many people at once, and I feel that leaves me at a disadvantage in these debates.

I think we better consider ourselves lucky that many of these mass murdering nutbags don’t start using the far more effective methods, because I think the society would really be up ★■◆●’s creek at that point.

[Top Gun]

You're right that there are more effective methods, but pretty much all of them require a good deal of preparation and entail some level of complexity in their setup. Pound-for-pound, there's nothing more useful for immediately causing fatal harm to many people than a gun. And as this incident illustrates so graphically, the ease of acquisition is unmatched: this little ★■◆● got his weapon GIFTED TO HIM. The mind reels.

[Spidey]

Yes, everybody knows that preparation and complexity are just too much for the human species.

Thank god people who hate can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

[woodchip]

But imagine the cool gun battle when a dozen people with guns all try to be a hero!

in a Church!!

well we don't have to imagine 9 people dying in a gun in a church or 40 people in a school or people in a college lecture hall or in a movie theater. What do all those place have in common? Seems we have tried the gun free zone schtick and found out anti-gun laws with gun free zones don't work. So how many more people have to die because the sheep keep thinking their wool coat will protect them from the wolves?

[CUDA]

The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America.
Further research has confirmed the extent of medical errors. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that there were 181,000 severe injuries attributable to medical negligence in 2003. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement estimates there are 15 million incidents of medical harm each year. HealthGrades, the nation’s leading healthcare rating organization, found that Medicare patients who experienced a patient-safety incident had a one-in-five chance of dying as a result

9 times the people die from medical malpractice every year then die from guns. and yet we give these people licenses to kill.

Maybe we should outlaw Doctors

Slick; unfortunately you are not privileged to the behind the scenes workings of churches. there are many churches that their pastors receive regular death threats and have resorted to providing them with Bodyguards. in many cases armed. it seems there are those that claim to not like the "hate speech" from the pulpit, and yet are eager to spew their own hate speech and threaten peoples lives in the process.

[Top Gun]

Yes, everybody knows that preparation and complexity are just too much for the human species.

Thank god people who hate can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

Do you really not get the difference between having easy access to a weapon which produces immediate results, and having limited access to methods that require research and procuring materials and assembly? Which do you think your average psychopath is going to go after? Yes, there will always be the odd Unabomber, but the scales are vastly titled in favor of one obvious method.

[woodchip]

Yes, everybody knows that preparation and complexity are just too much for the human species.

Thank god people who hate can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

Do you really not get the difference between having easy access to a weapon which produces immediate results, and having limited access to methods that require research and procuring materials and assembly? Which do you think your average psychopath is going to go after? Yes, there will always be the odd Unabomber, but the scales are vastly titled in favor of one obvious method.

Would that easy method involve a pressure cooker or a van loaded with a Diesel fuel/fertilizer mix?

[Spidey]

Do you really not get the difference between having easy access to a weapon which produces immediate results, and having limited access to methods that require research and procuring materials and assembly?

No, because I'm stupid

Which do you think your average psychopath is going to go after?

The easy one, unless that one is not available.

I think your side underestimates the lengths someone will go to once they have their mind set on doing something.

[Isaac]

I'm late to the party. I was temp-banned. It got a lot of work done as a result.

What it DOES NOT DO, is make a sane
person wish for more openings for folks to carry weapons, as Woody suggests.

Carrying means you have a gun to use as a last resort. It's an option of many you can take. It does not mean anyone with a gun would have successfully used it against the attacker. It means the victims would have an additional option they should of had. An option that might have made no difference in this case, but it's one you're glad they didn't have. That's not right, man.

[Top Gun]

I think your side underestimates the lengths someone will go to once they have their mind set on doing something.

Other than wondering what "my side" is supposed to be, I really wish people (not just you) would stop having that mindset of, "Well, if we can't stop everyone all the time, why bother doing anything at all?" Nothing in life is 100% preventable. Even people with storm shelters occasionally die from tornadoes. As many times as weathermen say "turn around don't drown," idiots still insist on driving through standing water. Vaccines aren't 100% effective for every person. But the common denominator in these and countless other examples is that we're trying to marginalize risk, even when we can't eliminate it. Yes, evil people will still do evil things no matter how hard you try to stop them. But the harder you make it for them to do so, the more are deterred, and the fewer innocent lives are lost. Fix what you can, instead of bemoaning what you can't.

[Tunnelcat]

9 times the people die from medical malpractice every year then die from guns. and yet we give these people licenses to kill.

Maybe we should outlaw Doctors

Slick; unfortunately you are not privileged to the behind the scenes workings of churches. there are many churches that their pastors receive regular death threats and have resorted to providing them with Bodyguards. in many cases armed. it seems there are those that claim to not like the "hate speech" from the pulpit, and yet are eager to spew their own hate speech and threaten peoples lives in the process.

More than that die every day in auto accidents too. So should we ban cars?

By the way, I just watched the NatGeo show called "American Genius", which gave the history of Colt and Wesson. The Civil War is where gun ownership really took off in this country, aided by Colt's faster firing revolver and the big animosity between abolitionists and pro-slavery factions.

TG, we're trying to do that in Oregon, by passing a law that requires background checks on private gun sales. But listening to gun owners and conservatives, you'd think lawmakers were taking everyone's guns away, permanently.

[Lothar]

I don't know of any church that would tolerate anyone carrying inside

I don't know any church that actually checks/asks. My Mennonite Brethren church (in Colorado) doesn't.

a substantial number... have heard just about enough BS around 'what we need is for MORE people to carry'. No, what we need is to have a system that was aware the kid owned a gun when he got busted twice in the past 3 months since his birthday. We need a system that vets potential owners and makes carry permits limited to proven need. We need a system that makes people liable if, though negligence or outright stupidity put guns into the hands of children or known criminals.

I agree with much of this, but "proven need" is a terrible idea. It's basically saying that the default is to disarm everybody, and you only allow people to be armed after they've already been threatened. Which, in particular, means even lower probability of someone being able to end an attempted massacre in the early stages. You might be seeing a lot of people tire of "more people need to carry", but I'm seeing a lot of people saying "gun free zones don't work" -- not necessarily that we need more people to carry, but that we need fewer arbitrary restrictions on carrying. (If you read "fewer restrictions" and skipped the word "arbitrary", back up and try again.)

It's like I say with taxes and government regulations -- it's not that we necessarily need more or less, it's that we need the right ones. Stronger regulations around securing your own firearms, stronger regulations around background checks for private transfers, but fewer regulations creating pockets of easy targets.

[woodchip]

Lothar, in MI it is a law CCW license holders cannot carry in a church.

[callmeslick]

was recovering from a summer cold yesterday(thank-you grandchildren, and summer campers), but couldn't help but be amused at how utterly hollow the defense of the current status quo was:
1.Cars and doctors kill too?
2.We can carry in church in my state(that's why many of us have been boycotting YOUR state)
3.You can't stop all murders, so why bother doing anything.

seriously? That's it? You justify a murder rate with guns that dwarfs the rest of the civilized world as acceptable for THOSE reasons. Heaven help us.

[CUDA]

Some please show me what law would have stopped this crime.
1. He was a convicted felon barred from purchasing a gun.
2. His father gave gim a gun purchased legally. But since he was a felon he violated the law when he did so.

the laws were in place. And yet they did not prevent this from happening. New tougher laws would do nothing to stop a criminal.

[Spidey]

“Strange, but people without guns rarely shoot anyone.”

No, but they do:

Bomb them
Strangle them
Stab them
Poison them
Drown them
Hack them with hatchets
Burn them to death
Mow them down with vehicles (deliberately, see Israel)
Etc…

And #3 is so absurd you should be ashamed. And nobody is justifying the murder rate…shame again.

[Isaac]

was recovering from a summer cold yesterday(thank-you grandchildren, and summer campers), but couldn't help but be amused at how utterly hollow the defense of the current status quo was:
1.Cars and doctors kill too?
2.We can carry in church in my state(that's why many of us have been boycotting YOUR state)
3.You can't stop all murders, so why bother doing anything.

seriously? That's it? You justify a murder rate with guns that dwarfs the rest of the civilized world as acceptable for THOSE reasons. Heaven help us.

How about addressing arguments people are giving you here? Or do you not want to talk to anyone with a different opinion? I'll leave you alone if that's what you want.

[callmeslick]

Some please show me what law would have stopped this crime.
1. He was a convicted felon barred from purchasing a gun.
2. His father gave gim a gun purchased legally. But since he was a felon he violated the law when he did so.

the laws were in place. And yet they did not prevent this from happening. New tougher laws would do nothing to stop a criminal.

first off, had there been adequate laws in place to DOCUMENT personal transfers, and to follow up before the transfer(waiting period,etc), that might have prevented it. However, the same folks who wish to blather on about 'responsible carry' are the SAME people who help block any such real enforcement. The have gutted the existing enforcement structure, made background checks a joke, prevented any regulation of private sales, on and on. As I said earlier, we are going to get to a critical mass of the general public(and I think we're approaching that pretty soon, judging by commentary on the web, which this time is far more robust than even after Sandy Hook) that is getting sick and tired of 'we need more guns' and 'no one can prevent this sort of thing' in the face of the clear fact that every other civilized nation manages to avoid this on such a regular basis.

[callmeslick]

How about addressing arguments people are giving you here? Or do you not want to talk to anyone with a different opinion? I'll leave you alone if that's what you want.

I did, above, and as I wrote in the quoted bit, what is coming up by way of arguments is extremely lame. Less gun free zones? More people carrying? You can't prevent all murders, so don't bother tinkering with the law? What other arguments are you suggesting? I really didn't bother before, but will now, address the matter of 'cars kill' and 'hospital procedures kill'. I would have supposed that intelligent adults would realize that in both such examples, the societal benefits of people being able to have personal transportation(not to mention the economic necessity) and the overwhelming benefits of medical procedures overall should be so obvious as to make it laughable to make the comparison to liberal laws around possession of firearms. There is NO societal benefit to people having unfettered access, without restriction or real enforcement of existing laws, to firearms. NONE. You cannot for one second equate the need for weaponry to the need for hospital care or personal transportation in the US. But, as I say, if specious comparisons and lame arguments keep up as the fallback of your side you literally are shooting your self-interests in the foot, and I suspect the nation is very close to getting serious about the matter on the order of Australia, albeit a bit late.

[Spidey]

As I have said before…there are some other countries where people are also armed to the teeth, and this kind of thing does not happen.

Can you explain that?

[callmeslick]

As I have said before…there are some other countries where people are also armed to the teeth, and this kind of thing does not happen.

Can you explain that?

can you cite specific examples? I've addressed Canada(or the Canadians here have, better than I). What other nations do you wish to provide by way of example?

[callmeslick]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/nra-boa ... t.facebook

we've talked on here before about the need for 'sides' in various political/social debates to restrain the lunatic fringe. Every truly responsible gun owner should be publicly, loudly and effectively opposing this sort of insensitive stupidity. Of course, the fact that Woody tossed similar thoughts out to start the thread shows why my side is getting a little leery of that ever happening.

[Isaac]

I did, above, and as I wrote in the quoted bit, what is coming up by way of arguments is extremely lame. Less gun free zones? More people carrying? You can't prevent all murders, so don't bother tinkering with the law? What other arguments are you suggesting? I really didn't bother before, but will now, address the matter of 'cars kill' and 'hospital procedures kill'. I would have supposed that intelligent adults would realize that in both such examples, the societal benefits of people being able to have personal transportation(not to mention the economic necessity) and the overwhelming benefits of medical procedures overall should be so obvious as to make it laughable to make the comparison to liberal laws around possession of firearms. There is NO societal benefit to people having unfettered access, without restriction or real enforcement of existing laws, to firearms. NONE. You cannot for one second equate the need for weaponry to the need for hospital care or personal transportation in the US. But, as I say, if specious comparisons and lame arguments keep up as the fallback of your side you literally are shooting your self-interests in the foot, and I suspect the nation is very close to getting serious about the matter on the order of Australia, albeit a bit late.

Here:

Carrying means you have a gun to use as a last resort. It's an option of many you can take. It does not mean anyone with a gun would have successfully used it against the attacker. It means the victims would have an additional option they should of had. An option that might have made no difference in this case, but it's one you're glad they didn't have. That's not right, man.

[callmeslick]

I addressed that in the sense, Isaac, that your reasoning is completely illogical, without creating a nationwide mandatory training system before anyone owns a gun. Frankly, you are just coming up with a more erudite version of the 'what society needs is more guns' argument. Sorry, but that has grown ever more tiresome, and holds so little intellectual merit as to not warrant further discussion. Unless you, as a responsible gun owner, are willing to put a LOT of pressure on your public spokespeople(ie-the NRA) and fight for mandatory registration of all firearms, mandatory background checks and a reasonable waiting period for all purchases and (this is likely a subject dear to me, but not all in my camp) criminal penalties for reckless storage and/or failure to report theft, your side is going to get overwhelmed and you will eventually get regulations forced down your throats that likely you and I might find a bit severe. Your call.

[Isaac]

Woah woah woah, Slick. The last thing I want is a headed argument, because communication will break down.

There's a problem in your paragraph above. You want less gun crime overall, but we're talking about a mass killing. The solutions to solve mass shootings require different solutions than the general gun crimes committed. If anything, mass shootings are special cases that require a special solution. Your arguments against policy that helps the average criminal get a gun would not stop mass shooters in a country with people that will always buy guns no matter what restrictions are in place. So, we must make a distinction between street thugs that commit most of the gun crime and the mass shooter that commits the most horrific gun crime.

So, let's help each other here and focus on mass shootings for this topic or we'll go back into another generalized loop of the same old arguments.

[Lothar]

couldn't help but be amused at how utterly hollow the defense of the current status quo was:
1.Cars and doctors kill too?
2.We can carry in church in my state(that's why many of us have been boycotting YOUR state)
3.You can't stop all murders, so why bother doing anything.

seriously? That's it? You justify a murder rate with guns that dwarfs the rest of the civilized world as acceptable for THOSE reasons.

"That's it?" No, that's not it. That's not even close to a reasonable summary of what people have said in this thread. A good-faith argument requires you to actually respond to the positions people express, not to invent imaginary weakened versions of their positions. You skipped basically everything I said in favor of talking about boycotting states! So weak.

Nobody likes the US murder rate. CCW types have suggested that the murder rate would be reduced if there weren't laws that create "target-rich zones". Not that you can reduce the murder rate to zero ("the line between good and evil... divides every human heart".) But it can be reduced -- and one of the first things to do is to get rid of the ridiculousness that is "gun free zones", and with it, any notion of "proven need" requirements* (As I said before: "Stronger regulations around securing your own firearms, stronger regulations around background checks for private transfers, but fewer regulations creating pockets of easy targets.")

* Why am I so strongly against "voter competence tests"? Because of the potential for systemic abuse. You must pass a test in order to be allowed to vote? Southern whites design the test, or administer the test, in order to make it easy for uneducated whites to pass and difficult for educated blacks to pass. Do that for gun laws and a few years down the line we're going to start hearing about how a disproportionate number of blacks, or some other group, are being denied on "proven need" grounds. So it creates pockets of people who are either unarmed, or armed through gang/black market ties. Which is not a recipe for making people safer.

I'd appreciate an actual response, instead of a worthless comment like "I'm boycotting your state".

[callmeslick]

Woah woah woah, Slick. The last thing I want is a headed argument, because communication will break down.

There's a problem in your paragraph above. You want less gun crime overall, but we're talking about a mass killing. The solutions to solve mass shootings require different solutions than the general gun crimes committed. If anything, mass shootings are special cases that require a special solution. Your arguments against policy that helps the average criminal get a gun would not stop mass shooters in a country with people that will always buy guns no matter what restrictions are in place. So, we must make a distinction between street thugs that commit most of the gun crime and the mass shooter that commits the most horrific gun crime.

So, let's help each other here and focus on mass shootings for this topic or we'll go back into another generalized loop of the same old arguments.

my solutions were aimed towards both mass shootings(primarily) and gun crimes. No need to put one aside for the other, if the same set of rules help address both.

[callmeslick]

"That's it?" No, that's not it. That's not even close to a reasonable summary of what people have said in this thread. A good-faith argument requires you to actually respond to the positions people express, not to invent imaginary weakened versions of their positions. You skipped basically everything I said in favor of talking about boycotting states! So weak.

no, I mentioned boycotting as a way the general public will address states that persist in reckless stupidity. It was merely an aside, so let's not get too sidetracked on it.

Nobody likes the US murder rate. CCW types have suggested that the murder rate would be reduced if there weren't laws that create "target-rich zones". Not that you can reduce the murder rate to zero ("the line between good and evil... divides every human heart".) But it can be reduced -- and one of the first things to do is to get rid of the ridiculousness that is "gun free zones", and with it, any notion of "proven need" requirements* (As I said before: "Stronger regulations around securing your own firearms, stronger regulations around background checks for private transfers, but fewer regulations creating pockets of easy targets.")

that is insane. You are, by default, simply acknowledging and accept gun violence at a tremendous rate and making it even more likely by reducing the areas in which guns are legally banned. Easy targets? None of us should have to live in a nation where ANY human being is a 'target'.

* Why am I so strongly against "voter competence tests"? Because of the potential for systemic abuse. You must pass a test in order to be allowed to vote? Southern whites design the test, or administer the test, in order to make it easy for uneducated whites to pass and difficult for educated blacks to pass. Do that for gun laws and a few years down the line we're going to start hearing about how a disproportionate number of blacks, or some other group, are being denied on "proven need" grounds. So it creates pockets of people who are either unarmed, or armed through gang/black market ties. Which is not a recipe for making people safer.

of course, you are right. That is why I dismiss out-of-hand the suggestion made by some here that all that is needed is 'education and training'. By proven need, my suggestion is that it be STRICTLY limited to those in law enforcement or private security, and that THOSE people be rigorously vetted, to boot. Frankly, I see ZERO need for private citizens to be running around in my stores, restaurants, churches, schools and streets with a loaded weapon. Sure, I accept that SOME in the criminal community will do so, happens in every civilized nation. The US notion of allowing every citizen who feels like they need the chance to be a hero or vigilante to carry is ludicrous and proven so daily.

I'd appreciate an actual response, instead of a worthless comment like "I'm boycotting your state".

see above,and I'm still boycotting any state that allows for public carry in restaurants and churches. I also have stopped patronizing Cabela's and was a participant in a nationwide movement among sportsmen due to the decision by that store chain to have concealed carry classes. They have become a handgun store, not a sporting goods store, so the hundreds of dollars I spend for donation to youth fishing programs and outdoors classes for military kids will go to Gander Mountain and Bass Pro. That's the American way.

[Ferno]

What needs to be addressed are two problems. the culture of 'everyone is out to get you' and dealing with the fact that that some people are still racist.

The kid wasn't mentally disturbed. he was racist as ★■◆●.

[callmeslick]

What needs to be addressed are two problems. the culture of 'everyone is out to get you' and dealing with the fact that that some people are still racist.

The kid wasn't mentally disturbed. he was racist as ****.

see my other thread. He was every bit a domestic terrorist and the product of his culture, no different than some kid in Pakistan who was taught to hate 'infidels'.

[Lothar]

It was merely an aside

Which you spent 40% of this post on, too Boycott all you want, I just don't see why it's relevant to the discussion.

You are, by default, simply acknowledging and accept gun violence at a tremendous rate

No, I am not. I am in fact talking about drastically reducing people using firearms to initiate violence.

... and making it even more likely by reducing the areas in which guns are legally banned. Easy targets? None of us should have to live in a nation where ANY human being is a 'target'.

I agree with the second half, and disagree strongly with the first half. Nobody should have to be a "target", but guaranteeing that the law-abiding will be disarmed in some specific, predictable way (like "always at schools and churches" or "always if they haven't been specifically threatened") makes MORE targets.

I dismiss out-of-hand the suggestion made by some here that all that is needed is 'education and training'. By proven need, my suggestion is that it be STRICTLY limited to those in law enforcement or private security, and that THOSE people be rigorously vetted

I agree that "education and training" is inadequate, and I agree with rigorous vetting. But limiting to "law enforcement or private security" makes the problem worse by guaranteeing more reasonable, sane, capable people will be defenseless in the case of a criminal, or even a rigorously vetted individual snapping. You think citizens carrying is "proven [ludicrous] daily", but I think your read of the data is completely warped. You're looking at the effect of criminals with guns, conflating that with the effect of stable citizens with guns, and ignoring the effect of stable citizens with guns either ending massacres, or simply acting as a deterrent for would-be thugs and troublemakers. You declared earlier that a potential victim having a gun just gives a criminal more reason to kill them and take their gun -- but I know a lot more people who have used guns to defend themselves (without ever actually firing -- just presenting a credible deterrent) than people who have been victims of gun violence.

And I'd like to improve that ratio. Stronger laws surrounding gun safety, securing your own firearms, training, and background checks for private transfers (net result: decreasing the number of guns in the hands of "bad people") and, simultaneously, getting rid of gun-free zones entirely (net result: decreasing the number of environments where "bad people" know the good guys won't be able to shoot back for several minutes.)