WHAT???
Solution:
Posted on 01/03/2014 9:54:48 PM PST by neverdem
In a parallel universe, those events might occur, but in THIS universe where we’ve had widespread CC for years, they haven’t.
I agree. That’s because those who go to the time and trouble to obtain a CCW permit are, more or less by definition, responsible people.
But they’re also probably considerably less than 1% of the population at any given time.
The article is about the (reasonably obvious) fact that if an armed responsible person is present when a mass shooting starts, it’s a lot more likely to get stopped before many people are killed.
But the chances of such a person being present at the right time and place are poor, because so few people go armed.
To stop most or all such shootings in this way, a great many more people would have to be armed. Which would create unintended consequences, because that much larger number would include people who aren’t responsible. Many people aren’t.
>>Presently those who CC are a small, self-selected elite. If most people went armed the mix of armed people would change, and not for the better.
No one is saying that most people should be forced to carry. If the “small, self-selected elite” was permitted to carry anywhere, most active shooter situations would be resolved as soon as they begin. A CCW permit should be a permit to walk armed past a “No Guns” sign.
The facts are in, and they are opposite what you stated in #17.
In every state when CCW laws came in, crime went down, and your liberal fantasy of proliferating road-rage incidents did NOT happen.
Nice try, now scurry on back to the Daily Besst, HuffPo or DU, and report on your trolling expedition over to the Constitutional side.
Sure, not everybody is responsible like you and me. Give me a break! Get off your self-righteous high horse!
When an active shooter is stopped by a cop, the average number of fatalities is 14. When an active shooter is stopped by a civilian, the average number of fatalities is 2.
Why? The armed civilian was already right there, while the cops may take ten minutes to arrive.
Gun free zones are free maniac murder zones. That’s why the Colorado shooter passed a half dozen theaters to attend the one that was posted as a gun-free zone.
There aren't enough people in this group to be there when needed in "most" cases.
To ensure that someone is present to oppose with force "most active shooter situations" would require a great many more people to be armed.
Most such situations do not really occur in public, in a crowd. Most occur in workplace situations, with a relatively small number of people present.
Look at Newtown. Six adults present. Possibly 1% of Americans go about armed. Even assuming guns had been allowed at the school, the chance of one of those six being armed would not have been high.
To prevent "most" mass shootings, a great many more people would have to go about armed. This, like anything else, would have both positive and negative effects.
Imagine someone walking into a theater and opening fire. 100 people return fire, some of them probably inaccurately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORqc1x3_Evg
We've ALL seen the shootouts in the bar in Western movies.
I wonder how accurate they are?
Eggzackly.
Another scenario that is problematic.
Shooting breaks out at the mall. Four or five CCWs bravely advance to stop the killing.
How do they tell each other apart from the shooter? Isn’t there a fairly significant risk of blue on blue? The greater the number of CCWs that respond, doesn’t that risk go up?
I always think of this when a plain clothes TV cop is chasing a suspect down the street, weapon in hand. How is an onlooker supposed to distinguish this from an attempted murder in progress?
Did you hear about the mass shooting in a San Antonio theater that happened a week after the mass shooting in the Aurora theater?
No? Maybe it's because after the perp got off his first round, an armed off duty sheriff in the theater pulled her concealed handgun and plugged him.
>>There aren’t enough people in this group to be there when needed in “most” cases.
I live in Florida where concealed carry is common, so my perception is skewed. A sizable number of men in FL have CCW permits. Most do not carry all the time because of all the gun free zones. If we could get rid of the gun free zone, then more licensed people would carry and that would encourage more to get the license.
I agree that northeastern states and left coast states would be a problem since the men in those states are not the type to carry in large enough numbers. But, that’s an issue to be dealt with on a state-by-state basis and, IMO, those states deserve what they get.
There are so many men in my company (approx 2500 employees) with CCW permits that we got them to change the rules to allow us to keep firearms in our cars in the parking lot because we told the company that we were going to do it anyway. Company policy changed to a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with regards to guns in the parking lot.
In states where men carry frequently, that is the mindset. We can stop active shooters in our state. The liberal states can try begging and pleading and using fire extinguishers and scissors.
But please, stop projecting your own spinelessness, weak knees, and lack of courage and ability on the rest of us who are not so burdened.
There was just a decision in Florida brought by an adult commuting student at the Univ. of North Florida in Jax. We can now have firearms in our cars on campus. That’s a step forward. Even guns allowed in cars means we will not be defenseless on the commute to school or work, at least. That is an improvement. Of course, the classrooms will still be gun-free zones, and hence magnets for murdering maniacs.
>>There was just a decision in Florida brought by an adult commuting student at the Univ. of North Florida in Jax. We can now have firearms in our cars on campus. That’s a step forward. Even guns allowed in cars means we will not be defenseless on the commute to school or work, at least. That is an improvement. Of course, the classrooms will still be gun-free zones, and hence magnets for murdering maniacs.
Yeah. But, at least we have guns in our cars now. But, if concealed carry meant “its none of your business if I have a gun” so we could walk past “No firearms” signs, then the people with permits could protect the rest of the class/office/theatre-goers.
To be honest, I often fail to see those signs on businesses anyway. They’re so small and with the clutter of all those “No skateboards or roller skating” signs, I just don’t notice them.
You can't. The chaser MIGHT be trying to kill the chasee, and yelling, "I am a cop!" and flashing a badge.
You still can't 'know'.
This world will never be perfect.
Solution:
FActs are that the student will more likely die from a car wreck driving to and from shoot than be shot by a crazy person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.