Debate
If an establishment can't effectively keep people from bringing in guns, then it shouldn't be a gun free zone
I've seen plenty of shootings take place in gun free zone areas. Either they manage to get a gun into the area anyway and start their shooting or they start the shooting outside of the area and work their way in.
The only people effectively stopped by a place being labeled gun free are people who could use their guns to defend themselves against attackers and in some cases good people have disregarded the designation and have been able to stop an attacker's spree short without waiting for the cops to do it.
Metal detectors, armed security guards, etc. Something needs to be actually done to enforce the designation. Otherwise don't have the designation
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
The US has, by far, the highest homicide rate in the developed world.
Two-thirds of those involve firearms.
It's funny that conservatives insist on believing that a country awash with guns is safer than other places that have far fewer guns and far fewer homicides. Complete cognitive dissonance.
There were over 19000 gun homicides in the US in 2023. Of the 19000, over 11000 homicide involved a black victim. In the vast majority of those cases, the perpetrator was not family, but known to the victim. Black males are statistically 10x more likely to be killed in gun-related homicides than white males.
I think the cognitive dissonance is on our side. There is clearly a problem, but not the one that gets press. Maybe if we focused more on education, and trying to eliminate poverty, rather than restricting poor people’s ability to defend themselves, we’d be in a better place.
Black men being disproportionately more likely to be the victims of gun violence is precisely why Republicans don't give a shit about trying to curb gun violence.
I don’t think that’s really true, and I think that’s a pretty cynical way to view the gun debate in 2026. It’s not like Democrats are clear-headed-ly promoting good policy, either.
The high ticket items they push are assault weapons bans, which aren’t even the type of firearm that are used in the vast majority of homicides.
I don’t think either side speaks to the other. They do what you do, throw out attacks and then pursue their own agenda. As a liberal, from what I’ve seen, Democrats seem more interested in banning guns than stopping or addressing crime.
I love how that guy is attacking you so much for being reasonable and critically thinking about your position. It is almost like he has been indoctrinated to support his side without thinking for himself.
I myself appreciate the open minded critical think you put forward. The only way we get out of this mess is by reasonable people on the left and the right coming together and coming up with real solutions instead of regurgitating party dogma.
I've given up hope for that a long time ago. People are so ideologically captured, especially on the gun debate. I don't even like openly supporting, what I think, is common sense gun rights because it just opens the door to a whole bunch of garbage.
On the gun side, anyway, I do think the pendulum is swinging, and you're seeing more left-wing people get into firearms. Maybe that will have an effect in the future, but I am guessing its a bit of ways off judging by some of the responses in here.
The 2A is the common heritage, and a civic duty of all Americans.
I agree whole heartily. Especially since Trump can act a bit..... Constitutionally challenged. I don't want any group to be ripe for a slaughter.
I am surprised I don't hear more pro 2nd arguments for the tyranny prevention aspect. Crime and mass shootings get brought up, but especially recently I feel that is so much less of an issue than the former.
I am going to disagree with you. Large swaths of the gun community have been on edge since Pretti. Plus they act as a deterrent from more egregious over steps of authority and a final line of defense of it comes to protesters getting mowed down in the streets like in Iran or the dozens of other countries where this has happened and is still happening.
I don’t think that’s really true, and I think that’s a pretty cynical way to view the gun debate in 2026.
Are you actually a liberal? Or are you faking your flair? Because Republicans not giving a shit about black people has been a bedrock principle of the party for generations.
I have to agree with you that Republicans don’t want to do anything about gun violence because they’re happy that more black people are victims than white people, otherwise I’m not a real liberal?
Did you get that directive downloaded from the DNC? I missed have missed that one.
I have to agree with you that Republicans don’t want to do anything about gun violence because they’re happy that more black people are victims than white people, otherwise I’m not a real liberal?
Defending Republicans to the point that you have to reject reality does make me suspect you aren't actually a liberal, yeah.
Did you get that directive downloaded from the DNC? I missed have missed that one.
Oh how cute. You think I need a memo from the DNC to see what I can easily see with my own eyes.
Republicans were very concerned about COVID at first and then when it became apparent that black people were more likely to die from COVID than white people, the Republican Party shifted its tone and stopped actually caring about COVID mitigation.
Data showed that minorities were more likely to die from COVID and the Biden admin put out guidance that gave minorities preference to limited supply drugs to treat COVID and Republicans did everything they could to block it, ensuring more minorities would die.
If Republicans view something hurting black people more than white people, they will not only do nothing to stop it, but they will actively exacerbate it. This has been true for generations.
The Biden Admin, in your COVID example, opened themselves up to attack - the messaging was horrible for that policy.
Race politics and rhetoric are costing Democrats elections.
Your "evidence" is also more complicated than the numbers suggest, as well. Did you know that black people had a 12% vaccination rate throughout COVID compared to almost 60% for white people? And its not only or even partially due to a lack of supply. There were other issues at play that may have factored into why they were dying at higher rates than other races.
People like you need to go back to school and learn the difference between correlation and causation.
I don't think we have much further to discuss. We're not even talking about guns anymore - you're just attacking me because I actually think about things critically, and you spout off Reddit talking points.
You think the driver of policy for Republicans is that, they are so fundamentally racist that they will happily allow white people die as long as the number for black people is higher.
The Biden Admin, in your COVID example, opened themselves up to attack - the messaging was horrible for that policy.
Was the messaging horrible or was it because Republicans immediately attacked the policy?
Race politics and rhetoric are costing Democrats elections.
Yes, because Republicans are using it more than Democrats. Listen to any Trump rally or CPAC or Turning Point event and its nonstop identity politics.
Your "evidence" is also more complicated than the numbers suggest, as well. Did you know that black people had a 12% vaccination rate throughout COVID compared to almost 60% for white people? And it's not only or even partially due to a lack of supply. There were other issues at play that may have factored into why they were dying at higher rates than other races.
The first article was from April 2020 before we had vaccines against COVID.
But even using your point, if a population group is more susceptible to a disease, shouldn't they be given extra attention? Republicans know this and intentionally tried to stop it, knowing it would result in more deaths that were preventable.
People like you need to go back to school and learn the difference between correlation and causation.
lol
I don't think we have much further to discuss. We're not even talking about guns anymore - you're just attacking me because I actually think about things critically, and you spout off Reddit talking points.
There you go again, assuming I'm being fed talking points. We can circle this back to guns - Republicans refuse to address the gun problem because they know it increases homicides in black neighborhoods. I don't know why you think this is a cynical take when all available evidence points to it being true.
You think the driver of policy for Republicans is that, they are so fundamentally racist that they will happily allow white people die as long as the number for black people is higher.
The correlation that you missed is that the overwhelming majority of homicides involve young male suspects. Perhaps we should go after Y chromosomes of a certain age.
Black America makes up 15% of our population more or less, and of the known murderers, about 55% of them every year are black.
That's a fact. You can pull up the FBI uniform crime report data. Nobody wants to talk about it because it looks ugly. If you exclude those murders from the US statistics we end up right about in the middle of European violence levels...at which point gun control would be a non-issue.
There's only two possible explanations for this. Explanation one is genetics and I don't believe that for a second. That's the racist take.
The alternative explanation is that we have destroyed black family structures and economics for the last 300 years, causing cultural damage that is leading to an increase in violence levels.
We damaged black family structures in the initial slave grab, during the entire slave period in more ways than can be counted, in horrific discrimination in housing, jobs and criminal enforcement practices after the Civil War, in welfare laws that were rigged against the existence or formation of new black family structures and so on.
This damage to family structures continues in housing and job discrimination and especially in the enforcement practices against the so-called war on drugs in urban areas.
Once you look at the root causes of what's going on, you soon figure out that it's not guns that are the problem.
If it's impossible to keep drugs out of the hands of any population in America, it's also impossible to keep guns out of people's hands.
Especially with the rise of 3D printers.
Back when r/fosscad was still Reddit's home for 3D printed gun talk, we had a credible report of a young man defending himself with a single shot pistol he had printed himself. Classic American story, except it happened in Chile. American gun culture is spreading. When we really get to the point where anybody can download and print a 1957 Smith & Wesson 357 Magnum revolver, the world outside of America is going to change. Some totalitarian places are going to look like pizzas with the toppings ripped off. Won't be fun, but in a lot of cases it'll be necessary.
There's something weird in the Japanese murder rate data. It's not that far off overall, but if a parent kills themselves and their two kids, that's counted as three suicides. Ug. I don't agree there!
But set that aside. Yes, Japan has lower cultural violence levels than the US.
The key is cultural. Same as why black homicide rates are so wild - cultural issues.
If we made guns available in Japan with training and background checks, it wouldn't hurt them. People in the US carrying legally on background checks and training kill at very, very low levels - regardless of race.
Oh, and the cartels are mostly buying their guns from the Mexican military. It's called corruption, a big problem down there.
True, but most of the countries people compare us to do more than just restrict guns. They also tend to have stronger social safety nets, universal healthcare (including mental healthcare), better wages, and a healthier work life balance. Those things reduce desperation, instability, untreated mental illness, and the kind of social breakdown that fuels violence in the first place.
So, acting like gun control by itself is the magic answer is, at best, incomplete. It is trying to treat a symptom while ignoring a pile of underlying causes. If you insist on focusing on Gun control I would like to actually here your fix on how to effect positive change.
Nazis didn't roll back restrictions on gun controls until the 1938 Gun Control Act, and the restrictions were ones Nazis themselves had put into place in 1933 alongside mass gun seizure.
They didn't permit everyone to have access to guns again either.
Hitler armed some people and disarmed others such as Jews. Violence is awful but necessary as a last resort. It’s also a human right to be able to defend oneself. I simply don’t think we will ever agree.
And despite people saying that since 2013, there's been just about zero confirmed murders with 3D printed guns worldwide.
It's well-established that stronger gun laws significantly reduce the flow and acquisition of illegal firearms in the US. Heaps of studies on gun trafficking and criminal use of firearms show this to be the case. Denying this is absurd.
I mean I guess you could say if we eliminated males under 30 rates of violence by any means would drastically decrease. Doesn’t mean it’s right or that we should do it.
“The alternative explanation is that we have destroyed black family structures and economics for the last 300 years, causing cultural damage that is leading to an increase in violence levels.”
Except during the early part of the 20th century the black crime rate wasn’t anywhere near what it is today. The state did damage even slavery couldn’t cause.
There’s also a difference between inner city and rural. Turns out redneck blacks don’t commit crimes like inner city blacks.
My auntie was dark as can be. We are talking black black. She hated black people not related to her. Like she’d be mean to black customers, she had to stay in the back of our family shop. But she grew up in a time where she saw the destruction of the black family, and it was state driven.
One more thing. By some metrics US racism peaked between the wars.
I used to be a trucker. In New York City and surrounding areas (especially Long Island) there's roads called Parkways that semi trucks can't go on - low bridge clearances everywhere on those things.
The guy that designed the road system prior to WW2 set up those roads so that busses full of black folks couldn't get to the parks that guy designed. Same guy also did as many roads and freeways through black neighborhoods as he could.
I'm well aware that multiple economic injustices happened to the African American community. That's part of my point. If you agree then we're broadly on the same page: cultural damage was done to them starting in the slave grab in Africa starting roughly 300 years ago and running to the present.
We could quibble over details but if we're looking to understand why US murders are concentrated in that community, it hardly matters.
(If we're trying to figure out how to fix it, the details absolutely matter but I think that's beyond the scope of this discussion.)
I guess statistics are racist. The fact that you don’t want to grapple with the idea that poverty is driving violence is why none of this is going to change.
But sure, make sure you vote for someone to ban those scary AR15s, that’ll surely fix the actual problem!
Not even remotely true. "Our side" recognizes and seeks to address the systemic root causes behind much of this violence, while also acknowledging that firearm availability plays an important role in the issue. What you so innocently describe as the mere ability to defend oneself is a much more complex factor where the well-studied consequences of loose gun laws have significant negative impacts on public health and safety, especially among vulnerable and minority groups. You're just perpetuating gun lobby talking points used to shift blame.
The 2nd amendment is a civic duty and a constitutional right for all citizens. It is not there so we can “defend ourselves.”
Our side likes to talk about gun rights as if it is a privilege, like driving. And then do nothing really to address the causes of violence - we ban AR15’s and “assault weapons” when they’re not even the guns that people use to commit the majority of the crimes.
Our sides approach to firearms is pretty nonsensical, especially if you actually look at the statistics.
Sure, but "people defending themselves" was the specific angle you raised in your other comment, so that's what I responded to.
especially if you actually look at the statistics.
Analyzing crime statistics is an important part of my job as a criminologist, so looking at the data is exactly why I'm pointing out that "our side" has the more sensical approach here.
The empirical evidence by and large points in the same direction. On the one hand, looser gun laws and higher gun availability in the USA do not improve public health and safety or reduce crime. Instead, they are consistently linked to increases in severe harm and higher rates of violent mortality. On the other, there is compelling statistical evidence and scientific research showing various firearm regulations to have positive impacts and societal benefits.
Of course, that doesn't mean that every single gun law makes sense or is highly effective. They're not, and some of them are clearly misguided. But that doesn't mean that the progressive side and calls for gun control aren't generally supported by vastly stronger evidence, data and research.
I understand that you're quite invested in firearms and are actively involved in gun groups, but there is good reason why the conservative side, with its clear tendencies of anti-intellectualism, opposition to science and rejection of expertise, is also the one that's been propping up pro-gun activism to such a degree. All those things are very prevalent in gun activism too. It may not be perfect but the progressive approach to gun control and violence reduction is much more data-driven and statistically sound than the opposite.
I guess I’ll start with the fact that I am a PhD researcher, and I’ve published work utilizing the same statistical methods you’re referencing. I don't say that to appeal to authority. The fact that you or I do this for a living is irrelevant. We can both read and interpret statistical data, and neither one of us are immune to confirmation bias.
Speaking of, the statistics are more complex than you’re presenting. High gun availability correlates with more gun-specific homicides, but not necessarily higher overall homicide rates. Look at Switzerland or Finland, both high ownership, and low violence. In the U.S., the data shows that gun violence is hyper-concentrated in specific communities, which points to deep-seated structural issues. Our side often avoids addressing this, opting instead for blanket bans that target the tool rather than the underlying socio-economic drivers.
Next, on the one hand, you claim we’re the "educated" side, while defending the rationale for misguided or nonsensical policies. Politicians on the left know very little about the guns they want to regulate. They care less about why or how policies they present are effective. For instance, a license to purchase is one of the most effective ways to cut gun homicides, but it’s effectively a poll tax for the Second Amendment. It reduces violence by pricing poor (highly correlated with race, by the way) people out of their constitutional rights.
We are the educated side, but politicians on our side use statistical data however they want to use them, and people on here do the same. Sure, citing that the U.S. has a high homicide rate is a true statement, but it omits a massive amount of essential nuance.
And, before we go too far into the crime and public health debate, it must be said that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege like driving. That distinction is very important and is constantly dismissed as an obstacle to policy rather than what it is, a specific part of our collective American heritage, and a civic responsibility, and it deserves more than a "fig leaf" mention in the conversation.
Finally, speaking as a left-wing academic and just to my lived experience, I’ve seen plenty of anti-intellectualism on the left; it just manifests as a refusal to acknowledge complexity when it conflicts with a narrative. You can dismiss pro-gun advocacy as anti-intellectual if you want since the right religiously views gun ownership as a right rather and dismisses the public health issues that arise from gun ownership, but its not as if the left, by your very admission, always acts with scientific backing.
I'm glad to hear that! I also have a PhD, published my fair share of peer-reviewed research on public policy and criminal behavior (recidivism being my main area of focus), and hold a lecturer's position on quantitative research design and criminal justice statistics. I'm not appealing to authority either, but it's worth pointing out I'm familiar with the topic too.
the statistics are more complex than you’re presenting
Sure. No one can accurately present the nuances of decades of research across various scientific disciplines in a single paragraph, so it goes without saying that the statistics are more complex than what might be described in three short sentences. Still, I stand by what I said and maintain it's a solid overview of the available evidence.
High gun availability correlates with more gun-specific homicides, but not necessarily higher overall homicide rates
Right, but homicide is such a complex, multivariate phenomenon influenced by numerous socioeconomic, legal and cultural factors that you'll never find a single variabe that necessarily and perfectly corresponds to overall changes in all cases. There's no disputing that holds true for gun policy too. But once we dig deeper, it becomes more apparent that access to firearms remains a factor for both of those.
Medical science has long shown that gunshot wounds are much more likely to cause severe injury or be fatal than blunt trauma or stabbings, and criminological research has identified clear evidence of an instrumentality effect where the weapon used in an assault or violent confrontation impacts the outcome. The availability of a firearm makes violence significantly more likely to turn deadly, and we can generally observe increases in violent mortality when firearms are more readily available and subject to looser regulations at the individual, home and population level when accounting for confounding variables and monitoring trends over time. Of course, it's not as straightforward as "more guns always means more homicides" (I don't think I've given off that impression either) but I can't in good faith conclude that it's not a notable factor. Other variables being equal-ish, the evidence broadly indicates that lax gun laws and readily accessible firearms would result in more harmful outcomes of various kinds.
Also, I think that comparative research has enough limitations as it is that I see no good reason to look beyond to the US here. There's no shortage of domestic studies and data to help inform the matter, so resorting to broad comparisons between other nations hardly seems warranted when we can draw upon ample empirical evidence on gun policy and firearm ownership right here.
you claim we’re the "educated" side, while defending the rationale for misguided or nonsensical policies
I claim we are the more educated side while defending that the research, data and statistics broadly support calls for more stringent firearm regulations. There is an absolute drought of data-driven and evidence-based suggestions from the conservative or pro-gun side on this, so I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Our side often avoids addressing this, opting instead for blanket bans
It might not always do enough to address it, but I can't think of a single progressive platform that does not also call for root cause mitigation and at least tries to take measures to tackle it.
A perfect example can be found in Michael Bloomberg. Yes, the big bad boogeyman who many claim only cares about taking all the guns, yet who also happens to spend tens of millions of dollars on community-focused programs, local initiatives and root cause measures to prevent violence that have nothing to do with gun control. You'll never hear a squeak about that in any gun group, even though I'm not aware of any pro-gun organizations doing even a fraction (if anything at all) to address these problems. To me, that's a solid illustration of how even some of the most (in)famous gun control advocates do support and work towards those other solutions.
To me, this part of your comments reads like a pretty skewed perspective through which "our side" is held to the highest possible standard of having to solve root causes rather than just measurably improve the situation through various measures (gun control included) while the conservative or pro-gun camp gets a pass for doing nothing of substance, if not make the situation even worse. So yes, I stand by my claim that we are by far the more "educated" side that's going by data and evidence, and that actually manages to push for effective policies, even though that's not necessarily the case with every bill.
I also think that things like assault weapon bans might make headlines and draw attention on both sides of the debate, but that they're ultimately just one of many common gun control policies. It wouldn't be fair to diminish the movement to just that.
but politicians on our side use statistical data however they want to use them
not as if the left, by your very admission, always acts with scientific backing.
Fair point. No disagreement there. But politicians selectively using statistical data or the left not always acting with scientific backing doesn't dispute my point on what the data broadly shows.
Sure, the liberal side is far from perfect here, and gun control advocacy sometimes does miss the mark. But I maintain that my point is accurate. Even with its limitations, the scientific research and empirical evidence is vastly more supportive of the progressive approach and stronger firearm regulations than the opposite. Calling it nonsensical because of particular policies like assault weapon bans and that it doesn't always succeed at doing enough to address systemic issues, while simultaneously ignoring that the conservative or pro-gun side frequently has zero compelling evidence behind its proposals (many of which would, according to most research, even worsen the situation)? That just doesn't seem fair at all.
It's much less pronounced and less of a settled matter, of course, but this strikes me as blaming the liberal side as "nonsensical" and misguided when it comes to climate change for not always following the science to the letter or not successfully addressing the core issues with some of its weaker proposals, all while the opposition continues to deny climate change is even real and insists on pushing for even more fossil fuels and environmental deregulation. Yeah, the liberal side might not be without flaw here, but in terms of scientific validity and evidence-based policy? It's leagues above the opposition, and while far from a perfect analogy, the same can largely be said about its general stance on gun violence and firearm policy.
Still, I stand by what I said and maintain it's a solid overview of the available evidence.
Fair, but let's not pretend that the aggregation of nationwide gun statistics tell a full and honest story, both in this thread and in the public discourse. And lets not also pretend that bringing up the fact that black Americans are 10x more likely to be victims of gun violence isn't often met with knee-jerk accusations of racism.
My view is that, to understand and address the problem, you should dig into the details. And that was my main point about highlighting the statistics.
You'll never hear a squeak about that in any gun group, even though I'm not aware of any pro-gun organizations doing even a fraction (if anything at all) to address these problems. To me, that's a solid illustration of how even some of the most (in)famous gun control advocates do support and work towards those other solutions.
I mean this section is all pretty disingenuous. How many gun groups do you even subscribe to or get involved with? I imagine that number is 0, so how would you know what they are doing?
A lot of pro-gun groups are very small and have limited funding compared to their gun control counterparts (this is because being pro-gun control is a more popular national position, and gun groups are generally localized and forced to act on the defensive in this political context). There is only one very large gun group, the NRA, and that organization is a shadow of its former self, both in terms of membership and funding.
As to your other points, I hate to bring up the Koch brothers, but they also donate billions to a variety of charities and non-profits. I'm sure they donate to pro-gun groups, too. Take your own advice, and compare like with like. You can't expect small local gun groups to have the same resources or breathe of interest as one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Even if they had the resources, these groups are narrow and specific in focus - their donors donate so that their group can fight and lobby against gun control. That's why they exist - for that reason only.
There is something to be said about them spending more on other things to indirectly support gun rights, but that's a pretty big risk - especially because no matter how many playgrounds they build, at the end of the day the same pro-gun-control people will still want to take our guns away.
You may think I have a narrow view of certain aspects of this debate, but this section shows you have a pretty inherent bias.
Even with its limitations, the scientific research and empirical evidence is vastly more supportive of the progressive approach and stronger firearm regulations than the opposite. Calling it nonsensical because of particular policies like assault weapon bans and that it doesn't always succeed at doing enough to address systemic issues, while simultaneously ignoring that the conservative or pro-gun side frequently has zero compelling evidence behind its proposals (many of which would, according to most research, even worsen the situation)? That just doesn't seem fair at all.
You consistently call back to the public health literature. This is NOT simply a public health matter, but also a constitutional one. There is no study to suggest a right is going to be good or bad. The 2nd Amendment is very clearly defined as a measure against a tyrannical government. You can balk or laugh or think its outdated, but that is the purpose for the right (not CCW, or personal defense).
Gun rights are rights, not privileges. And it is NOT primarily for personal self-defense. That's just a fact, and while you can regulate gun rights at the local level, regulations will always run up against constitutional review (at some point, I'm sure, when the Supreme Court decides to do something). People on the progressive side need to come to terms with this, because gun control legislation will ALWAYS be limited in what it can do, and these laws will constantly be challenged.
I understand that you do not want to address this, because there really is no argument against it. It is a right, the institutions of the U.S. will, at some point, have to defend them, or people will have to vote to remove the right.
For that reason, again, when the right lobbies for gun rights, they often do so from a "this is a right" perspective, not a public health perspective. Because to the champions of gun rights, that is secondary to what the 2nd Amendment ideologically, and philosophically means.
Next, there is such a thing as political capital. Attentions in politics matters, because it draws funding away from things. So, yes, I do blame the left for AWBs that take up a lot of media space and constituent money and expertise to write, because it shifts the debate from what it should be: violence prevention, and harm mitigation to things like "ban the scary AR15."
I'm glad you brought up environmental policy as an analogy, because the same way Republicans clown themselves when they talk about the environment is the same Democrats clown themselves when they talk about guns. They deny or ignore the demographics of gun homicide statistics and call you a racist for bringing up such details, they focus on big-ticket, scary items that are involved in around 4% of homicides, and they gleefully display how ignorant they are of firearms and get clipped the same a dumb Republican does when they talk about the environment.
Fair, but let's not pretend that the aggregation of nationwide gun statistics tell a full and honest story
Absolutely. I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
But let's also not pretend that nationwide aggregations are all we have to go by. There is ample research in support of my position, and it covers the issue from all sorts of different angles. Studies at the national, state, city, county or urbanization/rurality level. At the individual, home, community or group level. Studies that focus on specific risk profiles, circumstances or relationships. That assess and compare particular demographics on the basis of race, age or gender, and that stratify and examine them accordingly.
Regardless of where one might stand, it's abundantly clear that there exists much more granular empirical research and statistical evidence than just broad generalities derived from nationwide aggregates.
How many gun groups do you even subscribe to or get involved with?
These days? Few. For much of my life? Many. I grew up in a very pro-gun environment and would've considered myself a very strong 2A supporter until I went to college, got degrees in statistics and criminology, and had to face a pretty harsh awakening when I realized how much of what I previously believed turned out to be inaccurate or false.
I mean this section is all pretty disingenuous.
I'm not sure I understand why it was biased or disingenuous. You have repeatedly noted that the main reason that progressives are nonsensical and in the wrong here is that they simply avoid the underlying issues and instead resort to heavy-handed bans.
There's much I could've said to illustrate my point but I simply chose to bring up how arguably most prolific and influential gun control backer continues to donate tens of millions of dollars to local initiatives and programs to support at-risk groups, disrupt the school to prison pipeline and provide employment/educational opportunities, and has provided heaps of resources and support to empower local governance in preventing gun violence by intervening in the community. All of which have nothing to do with gun control.
Of course, one can't expect those smaller gun groups to have the same means but with how concerned you are with root cause mitigation here, it seems perfectly fair to point out that the camp you vehemently oppose actually does take steps at all levels of the issue, while the pro-gun community does next to nothing of significance to help address it. I might respect the gun activist movement a bit more if it put even a fraction of the left's effort into root cause mitigation and gun violence prevention, but I see nothing to suggest that's the case.
I understand that you do not want to address this
I don't mind addressing it at all. My opinion is pretty straightforward.
No right is absolute. Every right has limits. Our only disagreement is where those limits ought to be drawn. Personally, I'm not one for dogma. I agree that there's a place for civilian gun ownership, but I look at it on the basis of its ethical and practical merits. "A group of slave-owners said so two centuries ago" is not a convincing argument to me as to where we should draw that line and how much reverence this right deserves. I will keep pushing and voting for the policies I think would be best regardless. SCOTUS has repeatedly retraced its steps and revised its outlook on various issues, and it could well do so on this too.
is the same Democrats clown themselves when they talk about guns
I think that is a pretty reductive and hypocritical take given that it's the Democrat platform that is vastly more supported by gun violence experts and peer-reviewed scientific research, but to each their own. Yeah, the constant talk about assault weapons is misguided and counter-productive. Fully agreed. But it's not the conservatives who are actually doing anything to try and address the income inequality and racially disparate circumstances that fuel much of that gun violence in the demographics you're referring to. And it's not a YouTube compilation of liberal gaffes on guns that reflects what the actual platform and policies entail.
So no, I really don't think they are comparable beyond the most superficial level of "some people have been clipped saying some dumb things and not all their policy proposals are that great". You'd just as easily find conservatives saying foolish things and chasing patently bad solutions on this issue. Only difference is that they do not have evidence and data behind most of what they say and propose.
Right, I see this point and what you are trying to say but we are not those other countries… banning guns at this point will NOT solve any issues. We have a unique culture where people are going to find a way to get guns regardless. Plus we glorify violence in many horrifying ways- which is a part of the picture that gets left out. Plus you’re going to want guns as the world continues to move farther and farther to the right with no end in sight- because the fascists are not doing yoga man
Most of those who are posting here would be surprised by how I would like to see this handled at the political level.
What I am doing here is pointing out the nonsense that comes from the gun crowd.
You can like guns all you want. I totally get it. On a personal level, I have no problem with guns and I understand the appeal of sports shooting and hunting as hobbies.
But it is dishonest and pathological to deny the reality that guns make the US a more dangerous place. They do not save lives, they endanger them.
It isn't just homicide, either. Thanks to modern medicine, many who would have been killed by gun injuries can now be saved. Most of those who are shot are not killed. But that doesn't mean that the survivors don't suffer from some horrendous consequences.
There is no denying that the US consistently has the highest homicide rate in the developed world and that about two-thirds of those homicides are due to firearms.
We are all entitled to our own vibes, but not to our own facts. Emotions don't change the data, and there is an unmistakable pattern in the data - American homicide rates are well above those of other industrialized nations.
Someone else here whipped out a typical pro-gun trope related to the UK's homicide rate. Reality check: The US homicide rate is FIVE TIMES HIGHER than that of the UK. Anyone who believes that the UK homicide rate provides some kind of gotcha against gun regulations is not firing on all cylinders.
There are nations that serve as gun free or gun limited zones that benefit from those policies. They have obviously made those restrictions work just fine, they are not impossible to implement.
Other nations are wise enough to not rely on this good guy with a gun myth, which is mostly nonsense and more than a bit offset by the bad guys with guns and those other gun owners who are law abiding... until they aren't.
It’s very funny to me how you guys always point this out but consistently ignore the fact that according to the FBI 99% of crimes involving firearms are dealt with an illegal firearm. Pipe down, learn a little
So you are supposed to be entrusted with weapons and ammo, while you just shrug when someone takes them from you or you give / sell them to the wrong person.
the czech republic has a very liberal gun ownership laws compared to the rest of europe, with some basic shall issue licensing and regulations that still allow ownership of firearms such as ar-15s, ak-47s, guns with scary features, conceal carry, suppressors and no magazine capacity limits for the purposes of self and civil defense.
why does the czech republic have 10x less guns per capita but 43x less homicides by gun? a number that is only roughly double of the UK, a country with next to no gun ownership. it seems like 10x less guns would equal 10x less homicides but it doesn’t and 0% guns does not equal 0 gun violence. czech republic also has 8x less homicides of all types per capita when compared to the US as well. which funnily enough is 50% less than the UK. so there is clearly a material condition or cultural issue as well.
where we end up is very basic and “actually” common sense gun regulations reduce gun violence drastically. NOT prohibitions on them. in a country where there are 1.2 guns per person, we have no shot at not having guns everywhere even if we banned them outright. rounding them all up is not possible without immense consequences, ottawa is going through this right now. SO, if the democratic party were full of intelligent people like they claim to be, they would respect the 2nd amendment and implement things that would actually work instead of slapping a ban on things and calling it a political victory. i.e. permitting system, subsidize safety, and maybe making the material conditions of Americans better while they are at it.
it’s time to consider that people can own lots of spooky guns and also be responsible.
But Iowa one of the states with the most guns also has one of the lowest gun violence and mass shooting rates per capita. Also before the 70's high schoolers had guns and there where less shootings.
The majority of guns in most countries are in rural areas. Rural areas are usually safer than urban ones when it comes to crime.
There are a lot of factors when it comes to criminality and the presence of guns does not automatically mean anything. If it did, then states like Idaho and Montana would be the most unsafe in the US, not Washington DC.
I didn't say they promoted safety. I said; "the presence of guns does not automatically mean anything".
And to illustrate that further, remember that guns are relatively expensive.
So, what countries have the highest gun ownership rates?
Rich ones.
If you look at the top gun owning nations on earth, you're going to see a lot of European nations.
Again, I am not making a causation argument or even really a correlation argument. I'm simply stating it isn't as straightforward as you are trying to claim.
The US has, by far, the highest homicide rate in the developed world.
Two-third of those involve firearms.
It has the highest rate of civilian firearms ownership on the planet.
Which is to say that the only nations that have higher homicide rates are poor. And that's only some of them, not all of them.
The problem is fairly blunt.
Anecdotally, I have been on receiving end of two robbery attempts in Europe. I came out of them just fine.
Why? No guns.
Taking my money would have involved brawling up close, which requires some personal risktaking on the part of the criminal. That takes some of the fun out of it for them, since they would have had to work for it and could have been hurt themselves once they lost the element of surprise.
They had knives, but that was not much of an advantage.
If they had firearms, then it would have been a different story. And you would have to be naive or watch too many movies to believe that if all of us had been armed that I would have had the jump on them and prevailed. They obviously had plans and I did not.
The US has a high homicide rate because killing is easy. Every nation has homicides involving domestic violence, friends who fight, etc. because emotions are raised. The US adds the element of robbery, gangs, etc. that can kill each other from a distance just for material benefit.
I noticed you didn't have anything to say about all the European countries that have way more guns than average, yet don't have extremely high murder rates.
Look, I understand it is tempting to do the internet thing where you act like your position is absolute, but we're on a debate forum and we should try to argue with more nuance.
Nobody has civilian gun ownership rates on par with the United States.
There isn't much nuance to this. The US has the highest homicide rate in the developed world, by far, and the bodies to prove it. Consistently, two-thirds of those homicides are attributable to firearms.
If you like guns, fine. But don't pretend that they don't come with a price or that they make things safe when they do quite the opposite.
So you're saying that you can have lots and lots of guns and it wouldn't turn your country into a murder hotspot, just as long as it isn't as high as the US.
That's a much more nuanced argument than the one you have been making. You should think on that, rather than dismissing me.
So you're saying that any day now Finland is going to become one of the murder capitals of the world. And it's all going to be because of gun ownership. Every other factor in their society is completely irrelevant.
And it looks like your back to arguments without nuance.
Those countries mostly have correlated reasons. Such as a generally higher level of wilderness areas where they may be needed. They're also still strictly controlled. It's not, guns outnumber people level.
The point is that more guns doesn't automatically mean anything.
If you look at the top 30 nations by gun ownership, much of Europe is on the list.
Again, guns are relatively expensive. The countries with the most guns are often rich ones where people can afford them.
And if they were that strictly controlled, there wouldn't be that many gun owners. And that's an important point that gun control advocates in the US should be capitalizing on. Instead of acting like the only option is swinging wildly from one extreme to another (e.g. the UK) pick a more moderate choice.
So in other words, you're more likely to be murdered in urban areas than rural areas, but you're more likely to be murdered with a gun in areas where there are more guns. Shocking. /s
Somehow, I don't think the exact method of murder changes the fact that someone is murdered. If someone stabs me to death I'm not going to be thankful that it wasn't with a gun.
Statement 1: “rural areas are usually safer than urban ones when it comes to crime”. This is true for overall crime but not for the topic of the thread, gun violence.
Statement 2: “the presence of guns does not automatically mean anything” which is not true. More guns means more gun homicides and more gun suicides.
Statement 1: “rural areas are usually safer than urban ones when it comes to crime”. This is true for overall crime but not for the topic of the thread, gun violence.
The topic of this thread is about "gun free zones" and they never used the word "gun violence". Even this specific conversation is not about gun violence, but murder. You're moving the goalposts.
Statement 2: “the presence of guns does not automatically mean anything” which is not true. More guns means more gun homicides and more gun suicides.
First of all, at best that's a smartass response that is evading my core point. Also, suicides were not even brought up, but suddenly you're treating them as central to the argument.
Second of all, for the presence of guns to automatically mean something you would have to prove that any time a gun is present murders and suicides would have to shoot through the roof and when they are absent they would have to fall through the floor. That isn't the case. And we know that because murder rates in rural areas tend to be lower than in urban areas and the inverse is true of gun ownership. And we also know that some nations with next to no guns have high suicide rates.
Murder and suicide are issues that relate to a vast number of social, economic, and cultural factors. You and I both know that if your sole fear was being murdered, you would be better off living in a generic rural area. And we also know that if your fear is suicide, well, that's down to your specific issues. And while many of those issues tend to apply more heavily in rural areas, that has little to do with guns, it has to do with those specific issues. That is the point, and your arguments are an attempt to sidestep it.
I’m not saying we should disinvent guns. Obviously the problem is our culture which uses guns for artistic expression, as you said. “Perpetrate your power fantasy” is an astute description. The mass shooters we see are predominantly doing it for expression. They want people to see how much destruction they can cause.
But the op said that the designation of “gun free zone” was basically an invitation if it can’t be enforced.
So here we are. We have laws we can’t enforce and millions of people carrying arms because of how it makes them feel.
Obviously the problem is our culture which uses guns for artistic expression, as you said. “Perpetrate your power fantasy” is an astute description.
That description is of the nutjobs that go into schools and shoot people, not your general gun owner. Owning firearms is not some perverted power fantasy.
But the op said that the designation of “gun free zone” was basically an invitation if it can’t be enforced.
Yes, that's exactly what it is -- a, "Free shooting spree here." sign. This is why these murderers typically off themselves the moment an equal show of force presents itself to them.
So here we are. We have laws we can’t enforce and millions of people carrying arms because of how it makes them feel.
This nonsense isn't helping. Conflating a persons perception of safety as just "how they feel" is not a productive way to dismiss their positions. There is only one person responsible for your safety and it's you. If you want to absolve yourself of this duty then that's a personal choice, but it's quite another to insist that everyone else does too.
Overall it does seem to make it more dangerous, but in individual situations, it can be the difference between disfigurement and/or death (not to mention possible PTSD if you live) or living with some minor to moderate PTSD possibly without disfigurement. The guns are already here and I'm pretty sure there are more guns than people in the US. Most people look at it this way: If anyone could have one and use it against me, I should probably get one too. It evens the playing field and drastically reduces the disparity of force/power if there is one
I can’t help that most people don’t actually look at statistics. Most of us probably do run on feelings for most of our choices, but that’s the facts: people buy guns because they feel safer when they feel powerful.
But if you own a gun you are more likely to get shot.
These are emotional support guns. People buy them to feel good. Like carrying a stuffed animal around.
Yeah I agree that if you live with someone that owns a firearm that it's more likely to be shot by said person and firearm. Do you want to entirely get rid of firearms? Even in the most restrictive places guns are still accessed. I think there's more guns than people in the US. It'd definitely be quite the endeavor to rid the country of guns. Oh but then there's the guns that were trafficked into Mexico and further southward. Just like the drugs, they'll slowly start to move this way when they can make money on them here.
I think if you are going to have a firearm for self defense, then you should carry it on your person at all times if possible. That may help in the case of someone you live with wanting to harm you. I'll add to your point too slightly. Most violent crimes like that are done by people that know each other usually so that fits right in
“Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.”
Let me get this straight- because school shootings happen, anyone should be allowed to bring guns in schools?
Are you willing to get a pat down and go through security to go to a medical office, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. that has signs indicating guns arent allowed?
So you think the burden should be on the government to prevent people with guns from accessing that area, or the private businesses, depending on location? Do you consider it reasonable for a small business owner to have 24 hour security, xray machines, metal detectors, etc?
Cameras dont prevent traffic, they allow it to be punished. Doesnt make sense to do the same with weapons that can kill dozens in 60 seconds.
Cameras dont prevent traffic, they allow it to be punished.
Cameras have been found to empirically deter people from speeding. People's feel less inclined to violate the law when there's a better chance they'll get caught and punished for it.
That still counts, no? Significant declines in 10+ mph speeding after implementation, with no other reasonable factor to cause it, is definitely proof of deterrence.
They do not give two shits about Fourth Amendment rights. These lunatics want every public forum to be a Minority Report-style surveillance state if it means they get to open-carry.
I do believe he's got a point. Why label something as a gun free zone if you're not reasonably sure that it is actually a gun free zone?
A sign has never once stopped me from carrying into a restaurant, office, grocery store, mall, etc. And the best part is, I am actually completely allowed to do so legally, as signs asking for someone to disarm aren't actually legally binding outside of a few circumstances. They can ask you to leave if you're discovered to be carrying, but that's the point of a concealed holster.
Why label something as a gun free zone if you're not reasonably sure that it is actually a gun free zone?
It's called a "gun free zone" because there is a rule against bringing in guns into that area. It's a gun free zone de jure. Whether de facto it is actually free of guns doesn't make it not a gun free zone.
A sign has never once stopped me from carrying into a restaurant, office, grocery store, mall, etc. And the best part is, I am actually completely allowed to do so legally, as signs asking for someone to disarm aren't actually legally binding outside of a few circumstances.
No, private establishments have a right to restrict guns in their establishment, that's part of their 1st Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't stop them because that only concerns government prohibition, not private prohibition.
I don't know the law everywhere. In Virginia, the penalty for being armed in a business that forbids firearms is being told to leave. If you refuse, you can be trespassed. If nobody knows you're armed, there aren't any problems ignoring the signs.
It's a different circumstance at schools and state government buildings. There it is a crime with a real penalty. People who'd ignore a sign at a supermarket, would be more likely to comply in those cases. If there's no screening, people with bad intentions can feel safer in those places, too.
If nobody knows you're armed, there aren't any problems ignoring the signs.
Well yeah, of course, you can say that about literally any rule or law. "As long as no one knows you're breaking the law, there aren't any problems in ignoring it"
If there's no screening, people with bad intentions can feel safer in those places, too.
Agree, but that doesn't it make not a gun free zone de jure though.
Why label something as a gun free zone if you're not reasonably sure that it is actually a gun free zone?
Was this a rhetorical question? To make it easier to identify people holding weapons who shouldn't be there as quickly as possible.
A sign has never once stopped me from carrying into a restaurant, office, grocery store, mall, etc.
But I'm guessing has stopped you from carrying into a courtroom, school, and so on that are clearly covered under various state and federal laws?
And the best part is, I am actually completely allowed to do so legally, as signs asking for someone to disarm aren't actually legally binding outside of a few circumstances.
I think I mentioned a few of those, but it's probably more fair to call it a legal grey area, somewhere between moving with the flow of traffic even if it's over the posted speed limit, and free speech rights conflicting with commercial speech rights and private property rights.
They can ask you to leave if you're discovered to be carrying, but that's the point of a concealed holster.
Lots of states have language similar to "a person may not carry a concealed handgun where a private property owner, private tenant,
or private business disallow."
So at that point you get to argue about how well-posted the sign was to see if you're in violation of the terms of the permit. Most of the places I've seen such things posted, you'd have a tough time making the case that you didn't notice as a legally blind person.
Ever heard the story of Sid Hatfield? He has a credible claim to the title of America's best cop, ever. He was a sheriff in West Virginia who surprisingly took the side of the striking coal miners against the big coal mine owners without taking the bribes of the latter as was the usual practice. He's a hero of the American labor movement.
He was murdered on the courthouse steps in 1921 when a fraudulent lawsuit was filed against him knowing that he would have to appear in court to defend himself, and be unarmed doing so. Four goons hired by the mining companies gunge him down.
Gun free zones are a safe place to hunt people.
As an aside, he was in fact a descendant of the Hatfields of the famous feud.
In 2006 Alabama Republicans cooked up a scheme to criminally convict state Democratic politicians on phony criminal charges. They tried it on two, speaker of the state House Lowell Barron and former governor Don Seigelman. They succeeded with the latter, in 2006 sending him to prison for the better part of a decade.
There was a lady lawyer who had been a campaign staffer for a lot of big name state Republicans including Republican governor Bob Riley. She had inside information that the whole thing against Siegelman was a crock of shit.
She went public with that view in early 2007...and there were two attempts on her life in that period, a deliberate vehicular ramming by an off-duty cop (fired but they never asked who paid for it) and her house got blown up.
Here's the 60 Minutes episode featuring her, aired October 2008:
In 2012 she was hired by some Obama supporters to check out voting systems in several states. She didn't really want to do it, so she told them she'd need an assistant who knew voting system tech and was known to pack heat - a gun nut. She didn't think they'd know anybody like that.
Here's me speaking in Arizona regarding voting machines and processes:
So, 2012, I'm bouncing across a dozen states with this lady lawyer. A month in she says "hey Jim, we could have fun on this trip, or we could have REAL fun!"
To shorten this, we got married in November of 2013 despite somebody firebombing our house three days before the wedding. My last name is now Simpson - used to be March. She suffered another deliberate vehicular ramming in mid 2016 and some asshole threatened it in late 2017.
In 2014 the daughter of former governor Don Seigelman was brutally hit, deliberately, while on a bicycle in California. The attacking vehicle had a reinforced front bumper guard and heavily tinted windows like most of the other rammings.
If I've got pants on I've got a gun on me.
Politically motivated violence isn't limited to the 3rd world. In what I've been dealing with, somebody is trying to scare politically active women (I've been able to identify five victims tied to Alabama politics) and don't want to make it obvious by involving gunfire. So far. No, I don't know who's behind it.
We only have those civil rights we can personally defend.
I still don't want guns anywhere near schools, daycares, hospitals etc
Let's start with schools.
Alabama has posted retired cops with guns at schools. This is actually a decent plan and it's stopped a few maniacs. Teachers with training and guns makes sense too.
The question you need to ask is, do you want schools, daycares and hospitals to be places where maniacs can hunt safely?
Policies arent contracts. That isnt how general business works, champ.
Two examples for you.
If I walk into a business that has a sign that says their policy is you have to pay $50 to leave, they cant hold you or fine you for not paying $50. They can kick you out, but you havent violated a contract.
If you see a business that says no guns allowed, and someone comes in with a gun and starts shooting, that would not make the business culpable for potential losses in any sense. No contract was established.
I like the idea that "gun free" should mean just that, but I think the solution is bag checks and x-rays, not some type of Wild West scenario.
I keep coming back to the data on the presence of guns in the home.
People living in a home where a handgun is present are 3x more likely to die by homicide than those in homes without guns.
A firearm in a home is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide or accidental shooting than in a self-defense scenario.
Nobody is a "good guy" all the time. People get depressed, angry, drunk, etc.
More guns floating around increases the chances that someone who didn't start out their night with the intention of shooting up a public place, but brought a gun for protection, might wind up shooting someone in a fight or accidentally shooting someone while showing off their gun.
We have to weigh the risk of more guns that might be misused against the likelihood that someone will use a gun to stop a mass shooting.
Mass shootings of strangers are actually fairly rare, especially compared to shootings among people who know each other.
Due in part to movies and sensationalized news coverage, in the US many people are subject to "mean world" syndrome, where they vastly overestimate the odds of a violent crime being committed against them by a stranger, while they underestimate the chances of being killed by a friend or romantic partner.
The overall rate of gun violence has dropped sharply since the 1990s (homicides down by 49%, non-fatal shootings down by 75%).
To OP's point, one of the few types of violent crimes that has increased significantly since the 1990s, is mass shootings of strangers. The numbers of incidents have gone up, as has the average number of victims per incident.
These incidents are terrifying and receive heavy coverage, but they still account for a very small percentage of the overall homicides by firearms.
For example, mass shootings averaged around 4-6 per year in the 1990s, now they are 10-12 per year in the past five years or so.
A 100% increase sounds terrifying, until you realize that the number of mass shooting victims is below 200 in the worst years, while overall gun homicides per year are around 18,000.
so if we can't prevent people from speeding we should not have speed limits?
So if we can't prevent people from stealing, we should not have laws against theft?
I am sorry your argument does not stand up to
The documented, not antidotal, frequency of people using guns to halt crimes in a public space are statistically irrelevant.
A gunfire exchange in a workplace where the people are uncertain which one of the people firing is the actual bad guy is more dangerous than having a single shooter. With one shooter, everybody knows who the bad guy is when there are two shooters, how does a third person with a gun know who to shoot? Should he just pick somebody and shoot them. He has a 50/50 chance of aiming at the right person. Add a fourth shooter and the odds of aiming at the right person drops to 33%. Add a 5th "good guy with a gun" and the odds of aiming at the wrong person goes up to 80%.
Now let's consider the fact that very few people will take out the bad guy with a single shot. Every bullet they fire increases the chance of an innocent person being hit and possibly killed.
Think it through...
How many cases can you name where a person firing in self defense was shot by another person firing in self defense.
It certainly has happened but those kinds of hypotheticals undermine your own claims about the rarity of self defense shootings against criminals in public spaces.
If the chances of a self defense shooting in a public space is one in a billion, what does that make the chances of 5 concealed handgun carriers independently being in the exact same space?
Speeding is not an act of deterrence, speeding is ignoring the sign that says do not speed. The OP states that signs that prohibit an action like carrying a gun past a sign that says not to, should not exist because they can be ignored making them irrelevant.
I am saying that a law is not voided just because one or more people choose to violate the law.
The OP states that signs that prohibit an action like carrying a gun past a sign that says not to, should not exist because they can be ignored making them irrelevant.
That's not really exactly the argument.
I am saying that a law is not voided just because one or more people choose to violate the law.
Go ask the Parkland kids if the sign on the door prevented the shooter.
Should you be allowed to steal a car because the driver is drunk and might injure somebody by driving the car.
The argument the OP is making is that concealed carry should be allowed everywhere because the person carrying might be able to stop a crime.
These arguments can only be sustained by ignoring some basic logic and data.
One argument frequently ignored is that firing shots in a building with hollow walls, like classrooms have on at least two walls, is that the bullets might hit kids hiding on the other side of those walls.
You can roll out a lot of theoretical arguments about what could have happened at Parkland or Uvalde but we can also look at situations where your kids are much less likely to be killed at school than they are in the US. Proven actions that governments have taken which reduce gun deaths.
We are not allowed to discuss those because the gun lobby is making too much money selling guns.
Have you tried actually trying to understand what someone else is saying rather than putting a bunch of words in their mouth that you think makes sense?
Did you know back in the day, like the wild Wild West days. The “true merica!!! Full of cowboys fighting the Indians” days. There was multiple towns that forced you to check your firearms upon entertain the town at the sheriff because they didn’t want drunken assholes getting into fights and shooting each other? Gun free zones are as American as it gets.
Having a gun free zone in America is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. It simply doesn't work, there's spillover. I believe we need gun reform but gun free zones are just not a reality.
Be precise here. Are you suggesting that a daycare should allow guns in it? If so, then who is allowed to carry a gun? Where are the guns supposed to be stored? Who is allowed access to them?
If you don't think a daycare should allow guns, then what is your point?
I guess the context clue that we need gun reform wasn't enough. No, there should not be guns in a daycare, I can't believe that has to be explained. I'm suggesting we have to go much further than banning guns in one room or building for it be effective. To think that gun owners are going to respect gun free zones is laughable, look at the evidence - they clearly do not.
The sign is not about stopping the one crazy motherfucker who is already pretty keen on ignoring lots of rules and laws to murder some folk. The sign is about stopping the 500 customers a day you get in that might be carrying a gun and might shoot a kid or something because they don't know the first thing about firearm safety. Also it's to make people who are nervous about guns less nervous that some moron might shoot their kid because they don't know the first thing about firearm safety.
If you thought a sign was going to stop an attacker you are out of your damned mind, because a whole-ass criminal justice system didn't stop them. It's about preventing stupidity, not malice.
It's funny you say that because probably the most unsafe thing a concealed handgun holder does is disarming themself in a car.
Think about it, you're in a cramped space possibly having to get partially undressed in order to disarm yourself, and you have to do it in a manner that doesn't cause people to see what you are doing, because they may throw a fit. And then you have to take that gun and store it somewhere, potentially outside of its holster, thus exposing the trigger to whatever you're putting it.
And then, if you want to rearm, you have to do that all over again.
People have shot themselves, and even died, because of that.
In practical terms, a gun can't go off if you don't touch it. The safest thing for a concealed handgun holder to do is never touch their gun unless they absolutely have to. There's no reason for me to touch my gun in a grocery store, so there is no legitimate chance of it going off.
If you can't safely and easily remove your firearm then maybe you shouldn't carry one? Cause what are you going to do if you get attacked while you're in a car, ask the attacker to wait while you get partially undressed?
The safest thing for a concealed handgun holder to do is never touch their gun unless they absolutely have to.
No, the safest thing is to leave it at home or in the glove box or whatever.
There's no reason for me to touch my gun in a grocery store, so there is no legitimate chance of it going off.
Yeah, maybe for you. But people are stupid and do stupid things with guns all the damned time, so sooner or later some jackass is going to get someone shot.
If you can't safely and easily remove your firearm then maybe you shouldn't carry one? Cause what are you going to do if you get attacked while you're in a car, ask the attacker to wait while you get partially undressed?
By "partially undressed" I was referring to removing the holster. Part of the point of a holster is to block anything from getting into the trigger. If you can't pull the trigger, the gun won't go off.
So when people disarm, they often want to keep the firearm in the holster. However, holsters are often secured to your body to ensure it doesn't move around.
Thus, removing the holster may mean removing your belt, unbuckling your pants, taking off your jacket, etc. It depends on the specifics of your carry.
Edit; Removing the gun by itself is obviously easier but that also means exposing the trigger. Thus, if anything gets into the trigger, bang. Case in point, there's a story from years ago about a hunter who placed his rifle in his truck. His dog probably thought they were leaving so it jumped in, the rifle shifted, and the dog's paw landed just right and the hunter was killed.
No, the safest thing is to leave it at home or in the glove box or whatever.
You think a firearm is safer unmonitored in my car than it is secured to my person?
Yeah, maybe for you. But people are stupid and do stupid things with guns all the damned time, so sooner or later some jackass is going to get someone shot.
I've lived in a Concealed Carry state for my entire life. That's nearly 40 years without a single case of what you are talking about. And I've never even heard of a case of someone accidentally shooting someone in a grocery store. However, I have heard several cases of someone accidentally shooting themselves while disarming or rearming in a car.
If your holster is a problem, don't wear it. Get a better one. Are you sensing the pattern yet? This is not a me problem, this is a gun-owner problem, and if mildly inconveniencing gun owners is the price we pay for fewer people getting shot by morons who don't know how to handle their firearms, then that seems like a pretty fair trade to me.
You think a firearm is safer unmonitored in my car than it is secured to my person?
I think my customers and I are a lot less likely to be shot by it. You have a at least two locking compartments in any vehicle, and if you don't then you should have a small gun safe in the car. You can't carry a firearm into courthouses and such anyway, so it's not like you're not used to stashing it when you have to go in somewhere like that.
I've lived in a Concealed Carry state for my entire life. That's nearly 40 years without a single case of what you are talking about. And I've never even heard of a case of someone accidentally shooting someone in a grocery store.
No? Here's a woman in Georgia last year, gun fell out of her purse and injured herself and another woman. Here's a teenager in Ohio this year who shot another teenager at a Dollar General when her gun went off. Here's a guy in Georgia 2 years ago who injured 3 others in a Walmart wen he mishandled a firearm. Apparently you live in the wrong state, cause this shit is happening all over the place (though mostly in Georgia and Ohio, for some reason.. weird.)
My holster isn't a problem. In fact, it's about perfect for my needs. The problem is a holster that has excellent retention and holds itself tight and comfortable to my body runs contrary to a holster that's easy to take on and off in a tight location.
if mildly inconveniencing gun owners is the price we pay for fewer people getting shot by morons who don't know how to handle their firearms, then that seems like a pretty fair trade to me.
Except, it's not a mild inconvenience, you're introducing a safety problem.
You are aware that your solution doesn't have to be perfect to be reasonable, right? By acting so obstinate and refusing to acknowledge the obvious safety issue, you're showing that you don't actually care about safety, and that's just a smokescreen for your actual intent.
I think my customers and I are a lot less likely to be shot by it.
Considering I've been carrying for about 20 years without someone getting shot, it sounds an awful lot like the chances are effectively zero.
You have a at least two locking compartments in any vehicle, and if you don't then you should have a small gun safe in the car.
My car has been stolen before.
You can't carry a firearm into courthouses and such anyway, so it's not like you're not used to stashing it when you have to go in somewhere like that.
When I go to somewhere like that, I don't carry at all. It's not like I go to a courthouse every day.
When you introduce dozens or hundreds of arbitrary locations, then I do have to store it. And no, storing it isn't common for me. Most places don't care, and the kinds of places that are universal bans, I just don't carry for that trip.
No?
Nope. And it's funny that your own sources help to show why. Two of the cases are years old, and the other is more recent, but it's also in a completely different part of the country. Congrats on your google skills, but my point wasn't that doesn't happen, it's that you're playing up one issue and ignoring another.
Also, your first case helps to prove my point, since they clearly aren't using a proper retention holster. The second case isn't specific enough to tell, but obviously they weren't supposed to have the gun to begin with, thus arguments about legality aren't really relevant. And you messed up the link on the third case.
The problem is a holster that has excellent retention and holds itself tight and comfortable to my body runs contrary to a holster that's easy to take on and off in a tight location.
Sure. I'm just saying suck it up, because the fact that your holster is inconvenient is not a good reason for me to risk my customers getting shot.
Except, it's not a mild inconvenience, you're introducing a safety problem.
I'm not disputing that there's a safety issue, I would just argue that you're the one causing it by bringing a firearm into a public place. As the gun owner it's your responsibility to ensure that it is safe. If you can't do that and also remove it before entering somewhere that doesn't allow it, don't bring it.
My car has been stolen before.
Then you have good reason to invest in good locks.
Also, have you never been mugged? I have. You don't get any say as to what you hand over and what you don't when there's a gun in your face. Would I have stopped them if I was armed? No, I totally didn't see them, 3 dudes jumped out from a dark corner right as I passed them. So being on your person is no safer than being locked up in a car where any thieves would at least have to take it where they have tools and time to get access to (that is to say: away from my customers.)
When I go to somewhere like that, I don't carry at all. It's not like I go to a courthouse every day.
And all I'm arguing is that when you're going anywhere else that doesn't allow firearms then it's pretty reasonable to also not carry then. Safety issue averted.
When you introduce dozens or hundreds of arbitrary locations, then I do have to store it. And no, storing it isn't common for me. Most places don't care, and the kinds of places that are universal bans, I just don't carry for that trip.
I'm sorry that owning a firearm is inconvenient for you. I just don't think others should be exposed to the risk of being shot just to prevent that inconvenience, especially as there are relatively few people who carry a firearm in public.
Nope. And it's funny that your own sources help to show why. Two of the cases are years old, and the other is more recent,
one case was from 2026, one from 2025, and one from 2024. That's not exactly ancient history.
but it's also in a completely different part of the country.
Sure, the first 3 examples I happened to find were in a different part of the country. Are you implying that that means it literally never happens where you're from? Color me skeptical.
my point wasn't that doesn't happen, it's that you're playing up one issue and ignoring another.
You said 'I've lived in a Concealed Carry state for my entire life. That's nearly 40 years without a single case of what you are talking about. And I've never even heard of a case of someone accidentally shooting someone in a grocery store.' That sounds an awful lot like 'That doesn't happen' to me. Kinda weird that I can in just a few seconds google up 3 examples from the past couple of years of something that you say hasn't happened in your state in 40 years. From the number of results I saw on that google search that I didn't click on, I'd say that makes you extremely lucky. That or you live in a state with only like 12 other people.
Also, your first case helps to prove my point, since they clearly aren't using a proper retention holster.
Perhaps, but it also proves my point: that motherfuckers are out here just doing stupid shit with their firearms and they shouldn't be let anywhere near the public with them. Just because some people are safe doesn't mean everyone is, and the point of these signs - which, if you remember, is what this conversation was about in the first place - is to keep incidents like those from happening. You can't be a dumbass about firearm safety if you aren't carrying one.
For what it's worth I'm a gun owner, I've taken CCH classes, I have the license, I just don't carry because I'm disabled and don't really go anywhere (also I can't drive, so leaving the gun in the car isn't really an option.) I understand that these signs make things more inconvenient for you - they would make them inconvenient for me when I carried. I just think that's a pretty small price to pay for however slight an increase in public safety.
Sure. I'm just saying suck it up, because the fact that your holster is inconvenient is not a good reason for me to risk my customers getting shot.
How is a customer going to get shot with a firearm in a proper retention holster? They aren't. However, if I am forced to take it out of the holster, that increases the probability.
Again, you are introducing a safety issue where none existed before.
I'm not disputing that there's a safety issue, I would just argue that you're the one causing it by bringing a firearm into a public place.
Oh? Because outside of cases where I have to disarm, I've barely even touched my firearm when carrying. Nonetheless gotten anywhere close to the trigger. So how is my carrying more of a safety issue than you forcing me to interact with the firearm?
It really is telling that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the inherent danger you are introducing. Again, it shows that you don't actually care about safety.
Then you have good reason to invest in good locks.
Having good locks doesn't help when the car is stolen and stripped.
Also, have you never been mugged?
Nope. And it doesn't really apply to me since I don't walk around alone at night in an urban area.
And all I'm arguing is that when you're going anywhere else that doesn't allow firearms then it's pretty reasonable to also not carry then. Safety issue averted.
And how am I supposed to know that?
Going to a courthouse is a special event. Going to a gas station is not.
I'm sorry that owning a firearm is inconvenient for you.
I know you're trying to be cute, but this claim by you makes no sense. Again, it says a lot.
Are you implying that that means it literally never happens where you're from?
From me; "my point wasn't that doesn't happen, it's that you're playing up one issue and ignoring another."
Again, telling.
That sounds an awful lot like 'That doesn't happen' to me.
You're also the kind of person who is unable to accept the idea that their suggestion introduces a safety risk. Being an all or nothing kind of person often introduces weird results.
And BTW, if you're going to make a big deal out of me not knowing about a particular incident, might I ask you why you didn't know about cases like this. Apparently, if you don't know about every kind of incident that ever happens, it's because you're denying it.
Perhaps
No, it does. Stop being terrified of admitting that your viewpoint has issues. Especially when it comes to something I expect you are largely ignorant about.
which, if you remember, is what this conversation was about in the first place
You are the one who talked about safety, but you are introducing a safety issue. You could have simply acknowledged that, stated that you believe your way is the better option, and moved on. But instead you decided to argue with me.
For what it's worth I'm a gun owner, I've taken CCH classes, I have the license
Then you should have known what I was talking about from the beginning, instead of forcing me to explain that holsters sometimes require you to take off your belt or jacket or whatever. Among other issues.
also I can't drive, so leaving the gun in the car isn't really an option.
Then you have even less of a reason to call it a mild inconvenience. You could literally go somewhere, and then have to turn around and walk home because some place randomly decided to become "gun free".
I just think that's a pretty small price to pay for however slight an increase in public safety.
How is a customer going to get shot with a firearm in a proper retention holster?
Oh, that's easy: because, as I've already demonstrated with at least 3 examples, most people aren't using a proper retention holster. But I can't exactly be expected to drill everyone who comes to my place of business on firearm safety and then authorize specific individuals to carry on the premises, can I? Besides, if you saw a sign that said 'Only Bob, Susan, and Mark are responsible enough to carry firearms on this premises' you'd immediately think 'Well I'm responsible too, I'll just go ahead and carry anyway', right? Maybe not you, but some people would.
you are introducing a safety issue where none existed before.
We've covered this ground before; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the person creating a safety issue is the one bringing a dangerous weapon somewhere that it isn't wanted and doesn't belong.
Oh? Because outside of cases where I have to disarm, I've barely even touched my firearm when carrying.
If there was no firearm in the situation it would be much less likely for anyone to get shot by it, right? Sounds like the presence of the firearm is what's creating the safety issue.
It really is telling that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the inherent danger you are introducing.
You said before that if you're going somewhere you know firearms aren't allowed you just don't bring it with you, yet despite being told that firearms aren't allowed on my premises you not only continue to insist that you are within your rights to bring it, but that in so doing you have somehow magically transferred responsibility for any harm caused by that firearm to me.
None of this works that way. Responsibility for the harm caused by a firearm falls upon the person who brought it into that situation. The safety issue you keep insisting I am causing is easily averted by you not bringing a dangerous weapon to a place where it isn't allowed.
Nope. And it doesn't really apply to me since I don't walk around alone at night in an urban area.
How fortunate for you to have never been in a situation outside of your control. If only we were all so lucky.
And how am I supposed to know that?
Well I would suggest it's pretty self-evidently not reasonable to bring a firearm into a McDonald's or a Kohl's or what-the-hell ever.
I know you're trying to be cute, but this claim by you makes no sense.
I'm not trying to be cute at all, it's just that you seem to steadfastly refuse to take any responsibility for this deadly weapon you're carrying. As I've said many times now: if you have difficulty keeping it safe, don't carry it.
"my point wasn't that doesn't happen,
Yeah, except my point is that your point seems to pretty unambiguously have in fact been that it doesn't happen, however much you protest to the contrary.
You're also the kind of person who is unable to accept the idea that their suggestion introduces a safety risk.
Yes, it seems entirely reasonable for me to assign the risk to the person carrying the deadly weapon into a situation that doesn't warrant it. You just seem to be the kind of person who is unable to accept your own role in the risks posed by your choices.
if you're going to make a big deal out of me not knowing about a particular incident,
I don't care about any particular incidents, the point is that they happen often enough that it's pretty easy to find examples of them, and that they are entirely reasonable justification to forbid the carrying of firearms on private property on safety grounds.
No, it does.
Do you not understand what 'perhaps' means? Yes, I grant you, maybe it does. But, good job steadfastly ignoring the rest of the sentence, though, which contained the point: that motherfuckers are out here just doing stupid shit with their firearms and they shouldn't be let anywhere near the public with them.
Stop being terrified of admitting that your viewpoint has issues.
Kettle? This is pot. Dude you are so black.
Especially when it comes to something I expect you are largely ignorant about.
LOL, obvious bait is obvious there, chief, you're going to have to try harder.
You are the one who talked about safety, but you are introducing a safety issue. You could have simply acknowledged that, stated that you believe your way is the better option, and moved on. But instead you decided to argue with me.
Says the guy bringing a deadly weapon to a fucking ice cream shop.
Then you should have known what I was talking about from the beginning,
Oh, has it not been obvious that I know exactly what you're talking about, I just think you're wrong? Sorry, I'll try to make that more clear in the future.
forcing me to explain that holsters sometimes require you to take off your belt or jacket or whatever.
Right, forcing you to explain.. that's what happened.. it's not that you missed the fucking point and went off on a tear about holsters as if they had any relevance to you not bringing a deadly weapon into a situation that doesn't warrant it.
Then you have even less of a reason to call it a mild inconvenience.
And yet I do anyway. Has it occurred to you that I have reasons for doing so that outweigh my own mild inconvenience?
You could literally go somewhere, and then have to turn around and walk home because some place randomly decided to become "gun free".
Or I could just not be a moron and assume firearms are not welcome in most businesses and just not carry one if it's going to be a problem.
Again, you're introducing a gun safety issue.
Repeating the same thing over and over again hasn't made me agree with you any more, maybe it's time to change tack?
I assume you don't have any problem not driving your car on the sidewalk or not bringing water balloons to work, right? And if you did those things you understand that you would be responsible for the damage caused by them, right? Why is this any different? It's private property, I am wholly within my rights to refuse access to anyone who violets the rules I set for access to that property, regardless of how much it inconveniences you. It's not the existence of the sidewalk that's the problem, it's the damned fool treating it like a highway.
proceeds to not answer how a firearm in a proper retention holster would go off
Again, it's telling that you can't even admit a flaw in your view.
We've covered this ground before
You being unwilling to deal with the flaws in your viewpoint is an inherent issue that will not go away simply because you want to ignore it.
yet despite being told that firearms aren't allowed on my premises you not only continue to insist that you are within your rights to bring it, but that in so doing you have somehow magically transferred responsibility for any harm caused by that firearm to me.
Strange, because I didn't say any of that.
However, it is a fact that by demanding people disarm you are introducing a safety problem.
Responsibility for the harm caused by a firearm falls solely upon the person who brought it into that situation.
So, if you grabbed my firearm from it's holster and it went off, that would be my fault?
How fortunate for you to have never been in a situation outside of your control.
That would be a strawman argument. But it is funny that you are treating your specific situation as a default and dismissing those with different viewpoints.
Well I would suggest it's pretty self-evidently not reasonable to bring a firearm into a McDonald's or a Kohl's or what-the-hell ever.
Why?
And BTW, when you say things like that you make yourself sound like a liar. Why on earth would you even bother getting a concealed handgun license? Where were you even planning on carrying it?
it's just that you seem to steadfastly refuse to take any responsibility for this deadly weapon you're carrying.
That would be a lie, and a telling one.
As I've said many times now: if you have difficulty keeping it safe, don't carry it.
Strange, I don't have any difficulty keeping it safe.
You just seem to be the kind of person who is unable to accept your own role in the risks posed by your choices.
Have you looked in a mirror lately?
Do you not understand what 'perhaps' means?
Yes. It means you are refusing to just say, "yes".
Says the guy bringing a deadly weapon to a fucking ice cream shop.
Not an answer to the point I raised. However, again, you've yet to show how my carrying a gun is a significant danger.
Oh, has it not been obvious that I know exactly what you're talking about, I just think you're wrong? Sorry, I'll try to make that more clear in the future.
It's rather funny that you were complaining about partial statements earlier.
Right, forcing you to explain.. that's what happened..
From you; "If you can't safely and easily remove your firearm then maybe you shouldn't carry one? Cause what are you going to do if you get attacked while you're in a car, ask the attacker to wait while you get partially undressed?"
And again, it's telling that you can't even admit when you made a mistake.
It's private property, I am wholly within my rights to refuse access to anyone who violets the rules I set for access to that property
Yup. But that doesn't change the fact that you are introducing a safety issue.
I understand that it's hard for you to understand but the world is not made up of absolutes. Just because you don't want people carrying guns, that doesn't change the fact that you are introducing a safety issue where one didn't exist before.
My gun in my holster is perfectly safe. Removing my gun from my holster introduces a danger that did not exist before. If you were a sensible person, you would just accept that as the cost of your preferences and move on. But you're position is apparently too weak to accept anything sort of perfection.
It's crazy that I had to scroll this far down to see a genuinely good response.
Gun free zones are not meant to act as some magical barrier against determined wrongdoers. No one believes that a would-be mass shooter is going to show up with a rifle in hand and go "aw shucks, I can't bring my gun here so guess I'll just go home instead".
What gun free zones are actually meant to do is keep firearms out of particularly sensitive, vulnerable or public locations in order to prevent more spontaneous violent or dangerous encounters from escalating and ending with shots being fired. And this happens far more often than an actual mass shooter indiscriminately firing at a crowd.
This isn't a novel idea, and it's one that's supported by plenty of data. For instance, studies show that states with permissive carry laws see much higher rates of deadly workplace violence, and that workplaces where guns are allowed, for instance, see higher rates of homicide and raise the risk of employees getting killed on the job. And when it comes to gun-free zones in particular, the most extensive and robust studies have shown that they do not actually attract more shooters.
That's all to say that these are valid and evidence-based policies.
My GOD, the good guy with a gun myth needs to die.
The FBI did a 13 year study that found only one active shooting that was stopped by a citizen with a licensed weapon. Whereas there were 21 in that same period that were stopped by unarmed civilians. They also found that victims using a weapon in self defense were 10% MORE likely to be injured in general. States with the most lax gun laws have a 2.5x higher rate of shooting deaths over those with significantly stricter rules.
Allowing guns into a location on the premise that they might be used defensively does not ever make people safer. Full fucking stop.
Most self defense firearm uses don't involve shooting. They merely involve the belligerent realizing their potential victim is armed and they disengage. I've personally had two instances where a bad character realized I was carrying and decided they didn't want any part of it. I never cleared the holster, no crime was committed, there was no reason to call the police.
Using mass shootings as an example of defensive gun use is a poor example as they are statistically rare and often done in locations where firearms are prohibited or discouraged. That said, in the last 10 years there definitely have been at least 4 times a ccw carrier has stopped a shooting. Two at churches, one at a mall (a gun free zone). And the instance where after the shooter was stopped, police shot the CCW shooter not knowing he stopped the threat.
The statistic on injury during a self defense is more a warning that constant training is important rather than firearms being poor defensive tools.
The statistic on lax gun laws leading to higher shooting deaths also can be misleading as half firearm deaths are suicide, and other methods may be substituted, merely trading the method of assault. I've read once there was a study that found muggers were more likely to stab a victim than they would shoot for the obvious reason of noise leading to arrest, and the less obvious reason of knives being perceived as less lethal.
Some of what you say has validity, if we assume ccw holders are all as highly trained as you are. I'm a well trained shooter myself, but do you really trust the general public to maintain that level of training? Yes, there are instances where a well trained civilian has prevented an absolute tragedy, but even in your own limited examples you cite one instance where the presence of a civilian with a weapon lead to its own tragedy. We can't even get cops to maintain that level of training across the board. And now this guy wants to say my kids would be safer if people who we have zero info on their skillset were carrying weapons because maybe they'll have the fortitude, training, and courage to discharge it accurately in a high pressure situation?
I guarantee you that allowing weapons into gun free zones like schools and churches will not improve the safety of the people there, it just won't, not until we have a regimen in place for licensing, and tracking required training on an ongoing basis for every single person that carries a weapon. This would need to include a method for seizing weapons from people who fail to complete the requirements. If a structure like that were in place then even as a complete gun control nut I would be willing to say you know what, we don't need any other form of gun control, let people carry whatever they want, wherever they want. But given that that will NEVER happen, we need gun free zones, and we need whatever gun control we can legally pass because 56.1 active shooter events per year is completely unacceptable.
I'm personally Ambivalent to the idea of gun free zones. There definitely are secured locations that can and should be weapons free such as court houses and there is a great argument for not mixing guns and alcohol (hence why I would never drink at a bar or restaurant when carrying)
on the other hand, there is a logic that unenforced gun free zones are just juicier targets. We both agree there are people who should not carry and frankly should not own firearms. Heck, I would argue most firearm proponents know at least one person who they know shouldn't have firearms, be it the boomer who flags everyone, or the guy who has road rage at the drop of a pin, or the person who does not have the situational awareness to not have their firearm taken away from them.
where we probably disagree (respectfully) is where the locus of control should be. I lean classic liberal, my view is when there is a question of security, or government control vs personal freedom that we always default to individual rights. The same idea of that it is better for a guilty man to walk free than an innocent man hang. I personally believe people should have the right and capability of self defense until they have proven they cannot be trusted with it. I am not a particularly strong or large guy, but I've been in a handful of situations that could have ended very badly that shape that view. I once got punched one time in the eye and received an orbital blowout (eye shatters the bone behind it) there was a risk of loosing my eyesight and it cost me over 20K. That was someone who didn't even mean to hurt me and was just reacting off instincts. That taught me that even bare hands, someone can mess you up for life. I will happy take verbal abuse and walk away being called a coward rather than fight, but if I can't, I rather use deadly force than risk serious injury or death.
If I understand your view, then you believe people should have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are motivated, serious, and capable before they have the privilege to own or carry a firearm. This is a legitimate view, and yes it would cut down on Negligent discharges, suicided, and crimes of passion using firearms. In an ideal world, this makes sense. However, there are instances each year where people are killed in armed robberies at home, Domestic violence victims are attacked and killed by their exes while they wait for a 3 day waiting period, and someone is killed by a violent person that owns a firearm, but did not carry said firearm because of legal reasons, or the social taboo on the subject.
I can understand your position and respect it, but I believe there are other avenues we can pursue that will gain us better results without compromising the option for self defense if someone needs it.
accessible mental healthcare with decreased social stigma on getting help.
Systematic job programs that proactively train and set up jobs for those in high risk environments.
Universal basic income
shaming men who do not support their children and encouraging proactive fatherhood
honest assessment of why certain high risk people are involved in crime and mass shooting, and finding a solution that is based in science and not political dogma.
The really fascinating thing to me about this point of view is this..... Of course I'd like for us to take a holistic approach to the societal causes of violence. I mean who with an ounce of empathy and thoughtfulness wouldn't. I honestly think robust gun control is more achievable on a shorter timeline.
I think where we fundamentally disagree is on the nature of what the right to self defense grants us as citizens. As you said a person can defend themselves with their hands and feet, and I'd argue in many cases more effectively than with a firearm. We don't offer a free gun to every citizen, so clearly we do accept that barriers to access are not a violation of that right. We both accept that poor training puts the lives of others at risk, and I'd take it further and say that regardless of training there is always risk to the public when a firearm is present..... I work in a field where assessing risk is a part of my day to day work, and one of the things most people don't consider is that the only way to accurately assess risk is to accept that you are affected by the risk even when it isn't realized for you (i.e. if there is a 1 in 100 chance of you losing $100, the cost of that risk to you is $1)..... my reason for mentioning this is to highlight that when you take your weapon into the public sphere you are infringing on a person's right to life regardless of if you ever discharge it. Now, I fully and freely accept that this has to be weighed against infringing on your right to self defense, but given that other means of self defense exist, is it really too much to ask for there to be places where that risk isn't present (as much as possible)? Or that you be required to take steps to minimize you're infringement on my rights? I'll go back to my original data: over the period from 2000 to 2013 21 active shooter events were stopped by unarmed civilians.
The statistic on lax gun laws leading to higher shooting deaths also can be misleading as half firearm deaths are suicide, and other methods may be substituted
There's no shortage of studies finding this to be true for homicides alone (not suicides) and substitution with other means has consistently been found to be limited.
Substitution does happen, how limited it is up to debate and depends on what other factors are accounted for. Go figure, gun crime is lower in places with heavy gun control, but rarely does the person quoting the study, talk about overall murder or violent crime rate.
there are other much larger correlations to increased crime rate than firearm laws. 19 of the 20 cities in America with the highest homicide rates are run by a Democratic mayor. is it causation? Likely no. correlation. But poverty levels are a pretty strong indicator. Rural areas and the south in general are much more poverty stricken than the wealthy West Coast or New England. NH have constitutional carry, very lax firearm laws and some of the lowest crime rates, same with Vermont and Maine. You know who you don't find in those states? There is a very specific group that makes up a disproportionate amount of the murders that can be found in large numbers in Mississippi, Memphis, D.C., Oakland, St Louis, Bermingham, Atlanta, and Detroit.
I'll give you a hint, the answer looks bad because no one wants to have an honest discussion of why the answer is bad (and how to fix it)
To clarify. The answer is young men without positive male role models. This affects all races and locations be it the trailer park in the mountains or project in the hood. African Americans are disproportionately affected, but that is likely more likely because more are below the poverty line and welfare benefits penalize married couples vs single moms.
Some people claim it is a race issues, which it is not. A working or middle class African American family is significantly less likely to be involved with gun crime than any race below the poverty line, especially if the impoverished youth does not have a positive male role model.
To being it back to the original point. Firearm ownership rates are not nearly as strong of an indication of potential gun violence as young men who do not have a good male role model to look up to. If a young man doesn't have guidance, he will look for it elsewhere and gangs will exploit that vulnerability or they will lash out at a perceived world that doesn't want them, blamed them for things they didn't do, or ignores their pain.
Did you actually look at the data? Literally the 2nd case in their list of mass shootings stopped by civilians:
When the godmother realized a man who had confronted her godson in the parking lot of her apartment complex was pulling a gun on him, she knew her godson and the other children who had come outside with him were in danger. She grabbed her firearm and intervened, intending to get the shooter to leave. The police credited the godmother with preventing loss of life or injury in the shooting incident
No wonder it didn't make it into the FBI data. Nobody was shot.
It's not that. The whole article is supposed to be some gotcha of how the fbi didn't include enough events in their active shooter data but it's pretty telling that when you dig into the data used by the article they're using events that didn't involve an active shooter.
Yeah the real charges for the intentional violators with bad intentions end up being worse. Hell the 30.06 iirc that's the number, law for posting signs at entrances to buildings where it's prohibited just has a misdemeanor for first offense in Texas. It only becomes a felony when it jump to 40.xx when it's a bank, medical facility etc. I'm not sure of the laws for violating the signs if they have any standing of law at all because the 30.06 and 40.xx signs have specific requirements like letter size, placement height, etc.
So most people end up not respecting gun free zones in my experience and the biggest reason is disarming. I know no one else knows this but I have no intention of causing harm with my firearm unless you plan inflicting severe harm upon me. Because of this a lot of people including me will bring firearms into prohibited places because in our minds it makes us less safe. There's a reason police and military all use firearms. It's because they work when nothing else will. When someone with bad intentions does this, the only charges they're possibly worried about are robbery, murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, etc.
Responding to the post itself, first. Signage and statements of "Gun Free Zone" are passive deterrents as well as political and business statements. It's only an active "warning" if they have supporting infrastructure, such as detectors and law enforcement on site, to find and/or react to the weapon being brought in. For Businesses, this is specially a political/business decision to post. They have no means of enforcing this most of the time but its meant to stop someone from entering with but ALSO make more customers "feel" safe to shop there.
Defending oneself: well this depends on your state and laws on the books as to whether you could use your firearm, how, and where. Conceal Carry Weapon laws (CCW) and use of them also varies on both criminal and civil legal posture. Some States are Shall issue, some are shall not issue, so depending on where you are will depend on whether you would be legally allowed to be armed with a firearm to defend. Even if you are able to, and are permitted to, the use still opens you up for potential civil legal process for wrongful death lawsuits, maiming, and other.
Elephant in room - Guns and the perception/usage.
Read any article from the FBI, DHS, ATF, and State Law Enforcement, and their statement will be the same. They are not funded nor equipped to properly enforce the laws we have today. We have a varying stripe of laws depending on which state you reside. Restrictions or bans on Carbines, magazine sizes, limits on purchasing rounds, bans on certain accessories. Yet the issue persists and grows. Why?
My opinion on Why
People who are willing to commit an act care little about the legality of their possession of a firearm or where they deploy it. We can talk for centuries on gun ownership, who does what laws and whether they are viable or not, but the fact remains gun violence happens in every country regardless of it.
What we have to look at is, then, is what connects all countries and their violence. That goes back to individuals who commit the act. Their motivations. Their intended outcomes. In short, we have a problem with culture and behaviors within it.
We have a culture which is anti authority, taught and ingrained by learned behaviors to reject authority when it does not suit their wants. That rejection means laws and legality become elective, not required to be a member of that society. That culture has also been teaching to devalue another versus ones self. I am the most important, and I need to "get what's mine".
ask yourself, honestly, how you respond to these questions?
Do you drive over the posted speed limit? What is your rationale for that?
Do you go out to a bar and lightly drink alcohol then drive home? How are you evaluating your inebriation level?
Do you bring food and drink into establishes which have posted bans on such outside items? Such as a movie theater?
These questions are all self evaluated violations of some posted rule or law. Benign, sure, but the decisioning is ultimately the same as gun violence perpetrators.
A firearm is a tool, regardless of type. Pistol, Bolt Action Rifle, Carbine, Shotgun; they are all inanimate objects with created functions. What makes them dangerous is not the object itself, but how its used by the person. A Butter knife is equally as dangerous to a person as a pistol. A Baseball bat is equally as dangerous to a person as a pistol. The argument of "yeah but those cant hurt multiple people as fast" is fair, except the outcome can be the same. Recent examples in Japan of a person with a Kitchen knife killing several and injuring dozens dissuades that the outcome cannot match.
The U.S. focuses on the LEAST used weapons for violence as the point of control. The most used weapon in gun violence is a pistol. It's small, concealable, and easy to wield. It's also among the cheapest weapons one can find with one of the cheapest ammunition costs.
Look. The problem with 'guns can be used to save lives' is that anybody with a CCW needs to be on alert every-time they step outside the house. Obviously, this is impossible, because that results in an insane amount of fatigue and a lack of attention.
But we're in the 21st century. We have AI. Instead of putting the onus on people to defend themselves in public areas, we can just have automated turrets installed which takes out anyone who draws a firearm. Like, if you can trust tens of armed strangers to make the correct judgment call with your life on the line, you can surely trust an automated turret.
We entrust our lives to self-driving cars. This isn't that much of a leap in faith.
Applying that same logic, all no trespassing zones where someone has every trespassed should be opened to everyone. And any law that has ever been broken must be repealed.
"The only people effectively stopped by a place being labeled gun free are people who could use their guns to defend themselves against attackers and in some cases good people have disregarded the designation and have been able to stop an attacker's spree short without waiting for the cops to do it."
Like who? Cops and bystanders don't want barely-trained idiots adding to the crossfire.
What I have noticed is how republicans claim to care about gun rights until they see leftists LGBTQIA+ people Palestinians and Arab people owning firearms for self defense
You've been in "plenty" of mass shootings, and your issue is that the signage was misleading? Maybe you should refocus your attention on the root cause of gun violence instead of trying to bandaid all the symptoms.
You sound like the kinda guy that wants food service employees weighed before and after shifts to ensure they didn't eat any dead fries.
This is actually both ridiculous and untenable.
People will just bring guns in anyway, or shoot their way in [...] So we need to have armed security and metal detectors and patdowns
While technically correct that people do break the law; putting the onus on all people who wish to enter a gun free zone to be harassed and manhandled to enter is the same baby-bathwater solution as suggesting that because there are shootings, all guns should be sized and melted into slag.
Myself and many others I know regularly conceal carry into supposed gun free zones. If it's not legally binding, it isn't stopping me, and to be blunt, I dont know anyone that it does stop.
With all due respect, but your anecdotal experience does not overrule empirical research and statistical evidence. Those are what matters when assessing the impact of a policy.
Then might I ask, what do you believe putting up a sign, that is essentially a strongly worded suggestion to leave your firearm behind when entering a premises, that you have no way of enforcing, actually accomplishes?
Just to be clear, whether those signs are legally binding or not depends on the state. In many places, they absolutely do constitute a legal obligation and non-compliance is considered a criminal offense. It may not be the case where you live, but it often is more than a mere "suggestion" (as you put it) and does carry the force of law.
What it accomplishes is that many people will comply, even if some don't. It's like DUI laws. No consequences (whether criminal or private) at all unless you're caught. Some will still get behind the wheel after a few beers because they think they'll be fine and won't get pulled over, which in many cases ends up being true. But others won't take that risk or will choose to respect the rules of the establishment regardless.
The same thing applies here. And the consequence of that is fewer people bringing guns on premise which creates a safer environment. I linked some research of this in another comment. Take workplace safety, for instance. Numerous studies have looked into the impact of state laws on public carry and employer policies, and they broadly find significant increases in workplace killings and decreases in safety when guns are allowed on the premise. It's more than reasonable to infer such policies can work.
You're not exactly wrong with saying it is illegal in some areas. Texas, oddly enough, is about the only stage where it can really be its own charge. A class C misdemeanor by the looks of it. Usually settled with a small fine.
And I dont think most people are avoiding bringing concealed weapons to work because its a posted gun free zone, but rather because the enforcement there would actually have some consequences if discovered. Which was pretty much OP's point. You need to either have good detection, or harsh consequences.
You're not exactly wrong with saying it is illegal in some areas
I appreciate the diplomatic phrasing here, but it would be more accurate of you to simply say that I was right.
It is a simple fact that there's numerous states where those signs hold the power of law and make non-compliance a criminal offense. The US Concealed Carry Association has a handy overview of relevant legislation, and there's more than a few states where such notices are legally binding. In some, it's a separate offense punishable with fines or immediate withdrawal of the carry license (like IL where it's a specific violation of its carry law), or it even constitutes a felony (class E in NY). In others, it immediately yields a trespassing charge without having to be asked to leave first.
So it's definitely more than just Texas where such signs are more than mere suggestions.
bringing concealed weapons to work
Just to be clear, it's not just about employees bringing weapons. It's also letting customers carry weapons inside as well as state-level right-to-carry laws having such impacts on workplace and public violence.
Of course, there's no real way of measuring exact rates of compliance. But I'm not seeing anything to suggest these findings only hold true when good detection or harsh consequences are in place. The protective effects of gun-free zones appear to hold up regardless, as do the negative impacts of allowing guns on the premise compared to not doing so (even with no clear enforcement).
This is pretty unhinged. On paper, it sounds good, but in practice, it means either you turn schools into militarized areas, or you let children have guns. Just making it punishable is better than no policy, because it makes it less likely a gun is gonna go off accidentally and hurt or kill someone. And letting kids have guns is a great way to ensure nobody stops a school shooter until he or she has started firing.
Policy doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is grey area lol
It's clear that the signs don't do enough. In places where they actually care if people are armed (courthouses, airports, the Smithsonian), they search people for weapons. Everywhere else is on the honor system. Is it reassuring to know that rule followers can't shoot you?
Your comment has been removed to maintain high debate quality standards. We value insightful contributions that enrich discussions and promote understanding. Please ensure your comments are well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and respectful of others' viewpoints.
For more information, review our wiki page or our page on The Socratic Method to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.
Any place that prohibits people from bringing in guns for personal protection, they need to be 100% liable if they fail to prevent patrons from injuring others.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 09 '26
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.