Yes... it has been established that you must actually have firearms present, to have firearm violence. It is disingenuous to compare firearm violence to countries who have defacto or absolute bans on firearms, unless your goal is to enact similar bans here, which of course would be unconstitutional. What makes our country different is that we value individual liberty over all else. So, until a violent person actually DOES SOMETHING violent, we cannot segregate him from our peaceful society. And so, we must expect the occasional act of violence, as the cost of liberty. However, once he does initiate an act of violence, he should be locked away, forever. But instead, our revolving-door justice system is turning KNOWN VIOLENT people back out onto our peaceful society, while at the same time, retaining non-violent criminals on "3-strikes" life sentences. It's insanity. As an example, just a few days ago, a man who had been previously convicted multiple times of various violent crimes, used an illegally obtained and held firearm to murder a 4 year old girl in New Mexico. This man was KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY turned back out onto our society by our criminal justice system. Your ilk will use this as an opportunity to further your gun-ban agenda. I see this as another tragic failure of our criminal justice system, and hold them wholly culpable. This man should NEVER have been allowed to regain his liberty. If he had been locked away THE FIRST TIME, that little girl would be alive today, and all the other violence this man perpetrated would have been prevented. There are a tiny fraction of people who are perpetrating most of the violence in our society. We should identify them, and forcibly segregate them from peaceful society.... if a peaceful society is really what we want, that is.
Australia and England have not banned guns. And their murder rate is much lower than the US. Stick with countries that are similar to the US. Brazil and Russia are not.
You don't know that it was a credible threat so no mass shooting was prevented. But if it was a credible threat, they didn't prevent it, the tipster did. How many mass shooters had CCW licenses Doug?
That's entirely different than answering the question. You did not answer the question. You made a fallacious statement. I demonstrated why it was fallacious, as did others on this thread. You made the statement: "CCWs are more likely, by far, to carry out a mass shooting than stop one." You did not demonstrate the methodology used to determine the probability a CCW will stop a mass shooting, and therefor your entire premise is completely unsupported. So I'll give you one last chance to support this claim before I decide this claim is completely fabricated. Perhaps, but unless you properly explain yourself we'll never know.
Nonsense. The purpose of CCW isn't to prevent mass shootings, which would require a near serendipitous alignment of the stars to bring all the right elements into play to make that happen. And please there isn't one single last thing you can do to prevent mass shootings. First, a lone nutter intent on killing as many people as possible isn't likely to show up some place where that he thinks a lot of armed resistance might be present. For another thing such occurrences are exceedingly rare. And please random gangbangers killing some innocent bystanders in the process of killing their intended victim isn't the same thing as a mass shooting and trying to lump them all together is simply disingenuous at best.
Read the OP 75% of the time mass shooters are using guns they obtained legally. Source - - - Updated - - - It's in the OP
I just wonder what kind of panty twisting would be going on today if the murdering (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) in Oklahoma had used a gun instead of a car? Ironically, the media is claiming DUI, mental illness etc. Anything except what it probably was. Some nutjob with a need to murder other people for attention. Too bad someone with a CCW didn't see her in time to blow a hole in her head.
None. Concealed carry shootings doesn't mean the shooters were licensed to conceal carry. Sheesh. Talk about lack of reading comprehension. It means they weren't walking down the street with guns drawn. Obtained legally but not by the shooter. Epic fail. How many of the mass shooters, if any, had a CCW license?
There's no mention in the OP as to how the weapons were obtained. How many of the mass shooters, if any, had a CCW license?
An absolutely retarded assertion one can own any number of weapons and still not be licensed for concealed carry. Your assertion is tantamount to claiming that every stray cloud you see is guaranteed to produce a tornado.
One question. Is your rant against CCW only about saving lives? Yes or no. - - - Updated - - - Be prepared to be called "Rambo" in 3.....2....
I'd like to note at this time of utter silence from the OP, that this line of reasoning would be foiled by CCW vigilantes that were intentionally murdering felons, as that would tip the statistics touted toward higher numbers of homicides in the CCW v Felon category. As it stands, felons who are injured, deterred from crime by the display of a firearm, or are dissuaded by potential existence of a firearm are of no consequence to the conclusion drawn. I guess lots of mass shootings happen at gun stores, at gun shows, gun clubs, and in police stations. Not.
Mass shooting at a very well armed Navy Facility - - - Updated - - - Sheesh, read for crying out loud.
False. http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf Personal carry on military bases is highly restricted.
And if gun control worked, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC would be the safest places on earth.