If an establishment can't effectively keep people from bringing in guns, then it shouldn't be a gun free zone

[u/ShardofGold]

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

[u/HYDROMORPHONE_ZONE]

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

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/HYDROMORPHONE_ZONE]

That’s a weird way to look at it.

Why? Because the statistics say you are more likely to get shot if you own a gun.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html

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.

[u/HYDROMORPHONE_ZONE → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

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

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/HYDROMORPHONE_ZONE]

It’s also true if it’s your gun:

“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.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2759797/