(1) How is your right to self-preservation relevant at a school? Are you worried about 3rd graders attacking you? (2) In the framework of schools and private property such as malls, as the law currently stands, it is typically not on your side. They are fully within their legal rights to command you to leave your gun at home. (3) I'm curious: where does your right to self-preservation end, in your opinion? I assume we agree that it stops somewhere south of nuclear weapons. So what do you, personally, view as acceptable restrictions upon your right to self-preservation?
Something intrigues me about this question and I'm not sure what. Partly, I could sarcastically respond that we're getting it from the same place that declares a less-armed society will result in a Japanese fascist takeover of government. Or, given that the U.S. is already an armed society, one could make a few observations compared to other first-world countries and infer that, well, the U.S. comparatively already is a wild west. Also, this has to be the least-appropriate movie title of the year.
I'm not going to try to speak for LatinGroove, but I'll answer those for me: I would think it would be relevant at a school if I were a teacher there, and some lunatic came in and starting shooting at me at my work place. Or, if I were a parent having lunch with my child, or watching my child in the school play, etc. I think a private business can (although I wish they didn't) make policy against me bringing a gun on their property, but they certainly can't command me to leave my gun at home. (In fairness, I'm pretty sure you were implying the former.) But, I think that for public schools that are using my tax dollars, I would have a right to oppose a gun ban. (And, I know some folks that treat signs banning they carry a gun like most people treat speed limits.) My right to self-preservation extends as far as it can where I don't infringe on the rights of others. Which is to say, it doesn't end at all, if I'm not infringing on their rights. Using your example, I'm not sure how I could deplot a nuclear weapon without infringing on quite a few people.
(1) OK, but at what point does likelihood come into play? Should you be able to walk around with a bear trap because you never know when a bear might be nearby? (2) Yes, that was what I meant. Obviously they can't literally force you to leave it at home, but both private businesses and schools can tell you that being lawfully on premises and carrying a weapon are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you wish to challenge that in reference to the school, but them's the rules. (3) Could you own one? Also, where does my right to comfort and safety end? Everything short of actual credible threats to shoot me?
Gun free zones might as well be hunting preserves for the Adam Lanzas of the world. Gun Free Zone = "Hey, here's a place your your victims can't defend themselves." And yes, private businesses can make any rule they want about whether guns are allowed on their premises, and they should.
Again, just answering your questions for me, not trying in any way to have you change your opinion. Likelihood does not come into play at all for me forming my opinion. Using your bear example, I can actively choose to not put myself in situations where bears are present, so I wouldn't need a bear trap. If I were in a bear area, a trap wouldn't help me in an attack, but a gun would. And, if in one half of the wildlife preserve where there were 2 bear encounters a year, signs were installed that said "bear free zone," that would give me absolutely no protection against a bear attack. Agreed. And, I'm fine with the part of that law that allows each school district to choose to ignore them rules. I don't think I followed your question before, then. I wouldn't want to own a nuclear weapon, and for me, I don't think I could use one without infringing on others. I do believe, however, that I could carry and disharge a gun without infringing on anyone except the person intending harm to me. As far as possessing the weapon, I do not really care about your comfort. I have a permit, so to those authorized to check such things, I have demonstrated that it's unlikely I'm impacting your safety, either. Why would I try to shoot you or threaten to do so, unless you were trying to harm me? I think it's illegal for me to threaten to shoot you without cause, isn't it?
1) It is exactly the same likelihood as someone shooting up a school, which is the basis of this discussion. If we are going to declare that there is not enough risk to allow someone to legally carry a firearm on school property, then we must also declare that there is not enough risk of a shooting like this happening again to change or add any restrictions on firearms. That may be true, but the general public is looking for some assurance that it won't happen again. Not enough time to address the other two points.
I found the answer to this question. It's right here: As soon as you have a society where the solution to gun problems is more guns, you have the wild west. You have a place where the rule of law, and its enforcement, is so weak as to necessitate that everyone be armed, you have the wild west. And what's perverse is that this is viewed as a desirable state of affairs. So, where did people get the idea that an armed society turns into the wild west? From gun advocates, of course.
Not that it even matters at this point in the thread, but the annual homicide rate of the "wild west" wasn't vastly different to what it is today. There was a bunch of other stuff culturally going on during that time that gives it the "wild" name, but if you want to straight up compare the rates (which is kind of the point, since the issue of pro vs anti gun control comes down to crime rates), it is a little less wild than the stereotype might indicate. I'll sneak back out now.
And you completely ignored the part where I laid out how it doesn't infringe on the second amendment. In fact, the issue of whether you can have your gun on you while you're at the mall doesn't have a damn thing to do with the second amendment. I mean, it's kind of weird that after I suggested a policy that allowed more freedom to people allowed a CCL, the first thing you jumped on was, "Why don't you want me bringing a gun into a school? 2nd Amendment!" I don't know how our country is ever going to move forward on these issues with so many people who's only answer is more guns in more places. Regarding CCLs, check this out. Let me draw your attention a few snippets. Why would we want people to have guns in bars? How fucktarded can you get? Is that article biased? Absolutely, but they aren't exactly pulling things out of thin air either. You know, I do agree with the premise that if more of the population were armed, mass shooting would result in fewer fatalities. However, these incidents are rare and far more murders are committed elsewhere. Arming more people, and lowering restrictions would probably result in more killings, not less. They aren't though, and if they were and being effectively implemented I wouldn't be here writing about it. Several states don't even require you to have a permit to buy long guns (and in some cases hand guns). You can sell privately without even bothering with the background check. It's ridiculous. Maybe what I suggested in my initial post was too harsh. I think we could at least put forth some minimum requirements states have to meet. Fine, maybe it should be your right to have a CCL, but at least tighten up the background checks, stop letting felons keep them, and don't give them to people who have glaring issues like a history of alcoholism and major depression. The sad thing is I think our government is going to ban assault weapons and clips holding too much ammo. It won't do anything, and gun control advocates are going to feel like they scored a victory.
The rule of law in our society works just as well as it does elsewhere more or less. The issue with the rule of law here, like all advanced societies, is that the 'law' can't be everywhere when you need them. To somewhat combat this glaring weakness, societies such as the UK have implemented 'Big Brother'. You are basically watched from the time you open your door in the morning for the morning commute, until you walk back in the door at the end of the day. Has this solved the problem? The answer to this question lies in per capita rates of violent crimes. My point being, you can't arm yourselves and there is a very narrow window from which to lawfully defend yourself in public or in your home; basically your are left at the mercy of your attacker. The immediate response (in defense of the system) is that the person committing the crime won't get away with it because they are on camera. My immediate response is how does this matter to the person who has been battered, maimed or worse? It really breaks down to how you view the problem of crime and violence in your society. Do YOU want to hold the moral high ground, remain unarmed and hope for the best? Or will you do what America has done; will you arm yourselves in knowing that: For instance: UK has 2,024 violent crimes per 100,000. The US has 466 per 100,000.
Regarding guns in schools, the opposition is mainly emotionally-driven. It's understandable but it isn't grounded in reason. The fact of the matter is that a "Gun free zone" sign on the front door of a school is not going to stop a psycho bent on murdering school children. A couple points: First, I agree 100% that guns shouldn't be allowed on bars, with exceptions maybe granted for off-duty cops who aren't drinking. I'd also have no problem instituting "Carrying under the Influence" laws (only applicable on public and commercial property, if you want to get boozed up and shoot targets at your place or a friend's place that's not an issue as far as I can see), with criteria and penalties similar to DUI laws. That said...that article is biased as hell. They use two or three anecdotal cases and throw statistics out of context to make it sound like CCL holders in North Carolina are disproportionately likely to be violent criminals when in fact the reverse is true. Using their own numbers, over a five year period you've got 200 felonies and 10 murders/manslaughters (two of which didn't use guns)....out of 240,000 CCL holders. That's one felony per 6000 CCL holders per year, and one murder/manslaughter per 120,000 CCL holders. Meanwhile in North Carolina in 2011 there were 501 murders according to the NC DOJ (PDF file) out of a population of 9.6 million....a rate of about one per 19,000. In other words, the murder rate for the overall population in North Carolina is more than six times the rate of murder and manslaughter combined for CCL holders. Also, CCL holders who are convicted of felonies are supposed to have their licenses revoked. If they slip through the cracks, that's just another case of existing laws not being enforced, not new laws being needed. I don't think existing restrictions should necessarily be lowered--as it is, in shall-issue states felons and people with a known history of mental illness will be denied. I do think people with CCL permits should be able to carry on any public property to include public schools, however. Again, in theory that's all already supposed to be the case, at least in shall-issue states. I don't disagree that the existing laws need to be more strongly enforced and like I said I'd be fine with closing the gun show loophole if it wasn't simply going to be a case of "give an inch and they'll take a mile". Also I happen to know for a fact that the background checks do work at least some of the time--a family member of mine, a woman in her 60s living alone, spent a week in a mental hospital about 10 years ago after locking herself in her bathroom and threatening suicide. She tried buying a revolver last year for self-defense (not applying for a CCL, simply buying the gun) and was denied on the background check.
I’m just curious, but aren’t gun free zones more about guaranteeing safe areas with 0% chance of an accidental shooting rather than trying to ward off psychos by appealing to their morality?
Sure, but the initial purpose for placing the sign is immaterial to the shooter looking for easy kills. The guy in Colorado specifically sought out the movie theater which was the only gun-free theater in the area. He has 12 to choose from.
Is this confirmed from direct evidence from him? I hear this line quite a bit but have never heard the police heard it from him or found it in some list of plans. Could it have just been sheer coincidence?