Do you propose gladiator style tournaments to decide who qualifies as elderly disabled and weak? Maybe we all go 3 rounds with Chuck Norris? Why is there this need to split people up into groups, special interests, and classes? It's divisive. Stop it.
You're the one that brought up the elderly, disabled and weak. - - - Updated - - - Then why have any laws if they do nothing? You're not making any sense.
Wrong. If we had no CCWs we would have far more mass shootings. Strange omission is specific mass murderer shootings who had a CCW
But I'm not the one that proposed to treat them differently under the law. I don't seek to control people by pitting groups against each other. Nor do I have the narrow minded view that everyone who doesn't think exactly as I do must be "halfway snapped" or are cowardly and bizarre in some way.
Yes and even more asinine topic to make. As CCW holders are among the least likely to commit mass murders. They also are 5 times less likely to be arrested for any crime and 13 times less likely to be involved with any violent crime. The only known ccw holder to be involved in any kind of mass murder was that white supremacist Nazi who shot 4 cops killing three.
So dividing people up is okay when you are making a fallacious appeal to emotion, but not when a logical solution to your supposed concern is suggested. Interesting double standard.
Laws govern the lawful. Your lack of logic makes no sense. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. You think 30 more laws would make any difference? You think a stupid no gun zone sign will be obeyed? Wow.
We have laws so to punish them when they disobey them. Someone points a gun at you, you just point to the nearest no gun zone sign. Good luck with that. Oh and telling the thugs to disarm themselves - good luck with that too.
How did I divide anyone up? OP made a blanket statement that CCW holders are cowards. I pointed out that there are many reasons to carry that have nothing to do with cowardice. Read it again: I was including points of view that OP was either ignoring, or completely unaware of. His point was that you're either a coward, or you don't want to carry a gun. Clearly, that's not the case. Then you stepped in and decided that it would be a good idea to make a law that singled these groups back out again. Divisive. Like I said.
Logic says we punish those who break the law. Not make more of the same laws that don't get enforce or start going after the innocent.
I would say it depends on the motive. The risk reward potential of petty theft is a lot lower for sure. Suicidal mass murder...you're not likely to see that coming.
OF course people carrying guns have stopped mass shootings: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...civilians-stopped-such-mass-shootings-before/
I'm not against gun ownership. That said, Chris Kyle, a highly trained, very competent soldier was killed along with a companion by a man with a gun even though both victims were armed and wary of the mental state of the shooter. Just sayin'.
The one's who did obtain them legally, such as the LA theater shooter, had a HUGE violent past that should have been documented in NICS, and wasn't. That is far more of an implication on the failure of government to ensure the system they have functions correctly, than it is anything else. Calling for even more complicated gun regulations when current ones don't function is just foolish.
Did you even read this report...It deals mostly with justifiable homicides...Not CCW holders. Also it states that from 2008 to 2013 there were 1108 justifiable homicides. From the way your post reads there was only 579 from 2007 to present...You either need to learn to read data better and convey it. Also did you read the statistics from the NCVS table where it states that protective behavior where violent crime was concerned: from 2007 to 2011: 235,700 threatened or attacked the criminal with a gun, with other weapons was 391,100, and without a weapon threatened or attacked the criminal was an astounding 6,552,900...I guess the USA is starting to get it's backbone back... I mean seriously did you read the report?
I'll write this slow so you can read it. NONE of the cases in that article were about CCW permit holders. Yes, they were carrying concealed, but first, nothing in your article gave a single example of a ccw permit holder who did a mass shooting. Now, going to this link in your linked article, which is supposedly about CCW permit holders committing mass shootings, does not say a thing about CCW permit holders: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html In fact, the third example was of someone that was denied a CCW permit (the LA theater shooter). Yes, many of them bought their guns legally with background checks, but that just shows how useless background checks are. They just hassle ordinary citizens, without doing anything appreciable to stop crime. - - - Updated - - - How many CCW permit holders have you met in real life? I've met many. Only one or two of them, do I disagree with having guns.
Where I live most people open carry, the meth has been getting worse here for sometime. When there's more than one first target it works for you, and here it does. Kinda like peace by strength, when a bunch of people open carry someone is far less likely to try anything in that given spot.
Kinda hard to shoot a brother wouldn't you think? Unless your insane, which the killer was. Sometimes things happen, all that can be said about that scenario.