Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a modest proposal: Instead of govt trying to restrict guns, why not uphold the 2nd amendment?
Every time there's a mass shooting, the only alternatives people seem to examine, are either "ban more and more guns", or "everybody should be armed".
How about if we simply let the 2nd amendment do what it was originally intended to do?
If everyone is allowed to carry a gun, would everybody do it? Of course not. Most wouldn't bother.
But a few probably would.
And in a crowd exceeding 100 (as Wal-Marts frequently have), there would likely be a few, armed and knowing how to use their weapons.
And the guy who wants to commit mass murder, would know it. If he wants to go someplace where nobody could shoot back, and divert him from the body counts he wanted to rack up, a place where maybe 1 out of a hundred people (or even less) were armed, would be the LAST place he'd want to open fire. He might not be afraid of dying (notice the Wal-Mart shooter died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound - he killed himself). But his plan is to rack up a huge body count and get weeks of lurid headlines after the police finally show up and kill him.
If the 2nd amendment were actually upheld and enforced as written, and all law-abiding adults were freely allowed to carry a gun, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would.
And a criminal planning to rob a store, shoot up an office, or murder or rape someone in the street, shoot up a school etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the adults in the crowd were armed, and knew how to use their weapons.
Some of the crazier criminals might go ahead and commit their crimes anyway. But a number of them would consider the increased risk to himself, and decide not to commit it, than do nowadays.
Presto, a mass shooting prevented, all without a shot being fired.
Why don't we try upholding the 2nd amendment, instead of expecting government to make everything better? If someone contemplating killing people, knows there's probably someone near him armed and ready, he's less likely to even start.
The main use of civilian-owned firearms is to DETER crimes. Which is a far better result than the results we have gotten from every government so-called "gun control" scheme, which have never resulted in ANY reduction in crime.
I think a big roadblock is that pro-2A want to know the answer to " Criminals won't follow the law and be the only ones with guns".
and then when there is an answer, why haven't we done that?
That's a roadblock to letting law-abiding people carry their guns??? I would think it's a good reason for letting the law-abiding carry whenever they want to.
Sorry, I don't follow your point here. Please elaborate?
Well, I suppose this depends on the government being honest and looking out for the best of the people in the framework that the country was created in........
........and at best, the government is made up by many different people with many different opinions.
That's a roadblock to letting law-abiding people carry their guns??? I would think it's a good reason for letting the law-abiding carry whenever they want to.
Sorry, I don't follow your point here. Please elaborate?
roadblock between pro 2a and anti-gunners.
Meaning, anti-2As won't make any headway until they can address that concern about criminals still using guns since they'd just scoff at the laws.
I am not saying I want them to. I am saying that is a roadblock.
I am also saying, they probably can't.
The long trend is a decreasing amount of gun violence in America, despite the uptick of post G. Floyd/BLM riots and Radical Dem DAs refusing to prosecute CRIMINALS.
[b]And in a crowd exceeding 100 (as Wal-Marts frequently have), there would likely be a few, armed and knowing how to use their weapons.
And the guy who wants to commit mass murder, would know it.
This is already the case. Do you really think no one at Walmart had a gun? Do you really think these shooters aren't willing to kill if they know they will be killed? I think many count on it.
This is already the case. Do you really think no one at Walmart had a gun?
You mean, "had a gun and was ready and willing to use it when needed"?
It is self-evident that there was NOBODY in the store like that. Law-abiding people are justly worried about themselves getting arrested and prosecuted for legitimately defending themselves and the people around them... thanks to our numerous, unconstitutional "gun control" laws.
Quote:
Do you really think these shooters aren't willing to kill if they know they will be killed? I think many count on it.
(patiently)
Please see paragraph 6, of my post that you quoted but obviously didn't read.
I sometimes think that if all that time, money and effort for so long to ban guns and purely obstruct and harass gun owners, were instead to have been directed at the root causes of gun violence and violence in general and of course, mass shootings in particular, many of the killings would have been averted. There would also have been less resistance to safety rules and training and it follows, fewer accidental deaths.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
